list_frameworksRetrieve available analytical frameworks by name, title, category, and when to use each, filtered by category to select the right method for a problem.
List the analytical frameworks available, with each one's name, title, category, and when to use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Only this category. |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds the shape of each returned record but says nothing about pagination, volume limits, or ordering behavior for a list endpoint.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned fields follow. It is tight, though the return-field enumeration overlaps with what the output schema likely already provides.
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 no elaboration, and the category parameter is documented in the schema. For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool, the description is nearly sufficient; only usage routing to get_framework 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% ('Only this category.'), so the schema already explains the single optional category filter. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 ('analytical frameworks'), and enumerates what each entry contains, which distinguishes it from the singular get_framework sibling. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular/plural pair makes the split obvious.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery call before get_framework, but the description never says when to use it instead of get_framework or search_ideas. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.