Lists supported New World Scheduler entity types with their locally cached record counts, helping you identify available data categories before querying or managing records.
List supported NWS entity types and their locally cached counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — counts are from a local cache, implying they may be stale — and the 'List' phrasing implies a safe read. It says nothing about ordering, size, or freshness guarantees beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Appropriately sized for a zero-argument catalog tool, though it could add one clause of routing guidance at little cost.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a discovery tool in a large sibling set, the missing 'use this before X' guidance leaves a real gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing to document, and the description does not confuse the issue with phantom inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("supported NWS entity types") plus an extra detail (locally cached counts). It is distinguishable in practice from siblings like nws_list and nws_describe_entity, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling listing/discovery tools (nws_list, nws_capabilities, nws_describe_entity). The agent must infer that this is a discovery/catalog step from the wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.