rew_api_list_measurementsList all available measurements from your REW instance, including frequency and impulse responses. Use this to see what data is ready for acoustic analysis.
List all measurements available in the connected REW instance. Requires prior connection via rew_api_connect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter_type | No | Filter by measurement type | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the connection precondition and that the listing spans the whole instance (no filtering by group or user), but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what identifiers are returned, or how to use them downstream.
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?
Two short sentences, prerequisite front-loaded after the purpose statement, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter discovery tool this is nearly sufficient, and no output schema exists to defer to. However, an agent cannot tell from the description what the returned measurements look like or that their names/IDs are the inputs other REW tools expect.
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% and the single optional parameter has an enum with documented values, so the schema does the work. The description does not mention filter_type at all, adding no meaning beyond it.
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 and resource ("List all measurements") and scopes it to the connected REW instance, which implicitly separates it from rew_api_get_measurement (single measurement retrieval). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 prerequisite "Requires prior connection via rew_api_connect" gives a clear ordering constraint, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus rew_api_get_measurement, rew_api_groups, or the analysis tools that consume measurements. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.