Lists the catalogued calls for a given module, showing each call's method, key, mutation status, example, and response shape. Use it to discover read-only API operations before invoking them.
List the catalogued calls for one module (method, key, whether it mutates, an example and a response-shape hint). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes |
| 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 the key trait ('Read-only') and hints at the response contents, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, whether the catalog is per-session, or rate/scope limits, leaving behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the parenthetical detail of returned fields placed after the core statement. No filler. Slightly dense but efficient.
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 the description need not explain return values, and the 'Read-only' note covers the safety angle. The gap is the unresolved module-identifier format and the absence of any pointer to companion tools (nvr_call, nvr_describe_call), which an agent needs to act on the listed calls.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter ('module') has no schema description. The description only restates 'for one module', which duplicates the parameter name rather than clarifying its expected format (ID, name, index?). With zero coverage it should have compensated, and it largely does not.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('catalogued calls for one module') and even enumerates what each catalogued entry contains (method, key, mutates flag, example, response-shape hint). This distinguishes it well from siblings like nvr_call/nvr_raw_call (which execute calls) and nvr_list_modules (which lists modules). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.
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 intent (discover the callable surface of a module) is implied by the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. must be logged in), and no statement of when to prefer nvr_describe_call, nvr_call, or nvr_get_module_spec instead. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.