Lists the functions loaded by a running Firebase emulator suite, including names, regions, generations, triggers, event types or schedules, and HTTPS URLs for request/callable functions.
The functions loaded by the running suite: name, region, generation, trigger kind, event type or schedule, and the HTTPS URL of request/callable functions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It does disclose the observable content of each entry (name, region, generation, trigger kind, event type/schedule, HTTPS URL), which implies a read-only enumeration, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty results, or whether the list reflects live runtime state at call time.
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 a colon-delimited field list; nothing is repeated or wasted. The most important information (what is listed) comes first and the field enumeration follows.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what the structured data omits. Minor gaps remain around volume of results and whether the list can be empty or stale.
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 is 4. No parameter meaning is required, and the description correctly focuses its detail on the output rather than inventing input semantics.
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+resource ('The functions loaded by the running suite') and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as functions_list_calls or functions_get_call, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a listing of functions.
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 qualifier 'loaded by the running suite' implicitly scopes usage to the currently running emulator/suite rather than deployed cloud functions, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool for deployed functions or for call logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.