list_presetsList available print products with their physical requirements to select the correct preset for preflight checking.
List the print products this server knows how to check, with their physical requirements.
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the scope and output content but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or data-source specifics. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not especially rich.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the relevant qualifier ('this server knows how to check') and output details. No filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description adequately states what the operation returns. A bit more specificity about the format or content of 'physical requirements' would improve completeness, but the context is largely sufficient.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema is fully complete, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter coverage gap exists.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), an explicit resource ('print products this server knows how to check'), and the output scope ('with their physical requirements'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_artwork, check_print_readiness, and suggest_fixes.
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 intended usage is implied by the wording: this tool enumerates available print products before checking readiness. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or workflow guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.