list_objectsRetrieve all objects in the active FreeCAD document with their name, type, and label. Quickly identify and inspect components for design or simulation workflows.
List objects in the active document. Returns [{name, type, label}, ...].
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the active-document scope and the exact return field names, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling when no document is active or ordering/pagination.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence that states the operation, scope, and return format without unnecessary filler. Every element earns its place.
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 with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the scope and the returned tuple. It could be more explicit about prerequisites, such as requiring an open document, and about what 'objects' encompasses, but the core invocation context is sufficiently covered.
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 has full coverage, so the parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context by stating that the result is a list of objects with name, type, and label fields, which meaningfully supplements the empty schema.
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 action ('List objects') and a clear resource scope ('in the active document'), and it includes the return shape. It is clear enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like list_faces or list_documents, but it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
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 description implies the tool is for retrieving objects from the active document, but it provides no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling listing tools such as feature_list, list_faces, or list_edges. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.