List all configured TimeBase server instances to identify available data sources for querying and inspection.
List configured TimeBase server instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Output schema / $defs / TimeBaseInstanceInfo / properties / read_onlyAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Whether TimeBase rejects write operations on this instance.",
+ "title": "Read Only",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the word 'configured', implying only configured instances are listed, but does not disclose return format, sorting, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal additional value beyond annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any waste. It is perfectly concise for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, readOnly annotation, and an output schema present), the description is complete. The output schema provides return value details, so the description does not need to elaborate. It clearly communicates what the tool does.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific semantics. The single mention of 'configured' helps clarify the scope of listed items but is not about parameters.
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' with resource 'configured TimeBase server instances', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on streams, messages, and activities. The tool's name and description are unambiguous.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name, but no exclusions or alternative references are given. For a simple list tool, the implied usage is acceptable, hence a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.