nds-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

nds_list_available_targets

Show available JENDL-5 cross-section targets for a given atomic number and projectile, identifying which target states are defined in the database.

Instructions

List available JENDL-5 XS targets (A/state) for a given Z and projectile.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "Z": "<Z>",
      "projectile": "<projectile>"
    },
    "name": "nds_list_available_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`Z`	Yes	Atomic number
`projectile`	Yes		n

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a list/read operation and mentions the data source (JENDL-5) and output concept (A/state), but does not describe return format, pagination, or any edge cases. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It includes the essential verb, resource, and parameter context, earning a maximum score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output concept (A/state targets). It does not fully describe return value structure, but the minimal complexity of the tool makes this acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (Z has a description, projectile has enum/default but no description). The description repeats the parameters without adding deeper semantics. The mention of 'A/state' hints at output structure but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available JENDL-5 XS targets (A/state)'), and specifies the required inputs (Z and projectile). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nds_get_cross_section_table or nds_query, which are about retrieving data rather than enumerating available targets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (when you need to list available targets for a given Z and projectile), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. It implies usage but lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.