List every cached render image with its metadata to recover an image ID for cropping or re-rendering, or to audit previously viewed images.
List every image currently in the in-process render cache with its metadata (view, source part studio, dimensions, crop lineage). Use to recover an image_id you need to crop or re-render, or to audit what you've looked at so far.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reads namely the 'in-process render cache', which signals the cache is session-scoped and may not persist across processes. The verb 'list' and the emphasis on current content imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, though the description could have explicitly stated it does not mutate the cache. Still, for a listing tool, the notable scope is made transparent.
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?
The description is two sentences of 33 and 13 words, with no fluff. It front-loads' the core action and resource, then immediately provides motivation and common use cases. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple, parameter-less listing tool with no output schema, the description fully tells the agent what it returns (images and metadata fields) and when to invoke it. It also mentions the unique 'crop lineage' field, which is high-value contextual info. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers all argument semantics perfectly (the empty object is sufficient). Description focuses on output/return usage rather than parameter meaning, which is appropriate and gives no extra layer needed.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource ('every image currently in the in-process render cache'), while also enumerating the returned metadata (view, source part studio, dimensions, crop lineage). This clearly distinguishes the tool from rendering, cropping, and other sibling actions, so the agent can select it without opening schemas.
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?
The description provides clear usage context: 'recover an image_id you need to crop or re-render, or to audit what you've looked at so far.' It tells the agent when to call the tool, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer beyond these implied cases. Thus it has clear context with no formal exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.