List all open documents in FreeCAD to get their names, labels, file paths, dirty status, active status, and object counts.
List all open documents: [{name, label, file_path, dirty, active, object_count}, ...].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it partially meets that with the inline return shape, which reveals the tool is a non-destructive enumeration returning document metadata. It says nothing about ordering, whether documents from other workspaces are included, or cost/volume limits, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the return shape. Nothing is redundant or padding.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by documenting the returned fields (name, label, file_path, dirty, active, object_count), which is enough for an agent to consume the result. It stops short of explaining ordering or cross-workspace scope.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no inputs that need explanation, and the description correctly does not invent any.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all open documents'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read-only enumeration of currently open documents. However, it does not name or contrast with siblings such as list_objects, list_workspaces, or get_object, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'all open documents' implicitly scopes the result set, but the agent receives no guidance on choosing this over list_objects or get_object.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.