Retrieve all objects in the active document, returning each object's name, type, and label for inspection or further processing.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return tuple shape ({name, type, label}), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scope (recursive? hidden bodies? sketches vs. all types) or ordering. Adequate but shallow for a discovery tool.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the return shape immediately following. Every clause 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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials, including the return shape. It is nearly complete; only the scope of what counts as an 'object' is left open.
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 baseline there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema provides. The description is consistent with the empty argument object.
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 objects in the active document') and adds the return shape, so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not differentiate itself from near siblings such as get_object, list_faces, or list_edges, but the action itself is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovering document contents rather than reading it anywhere in the text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.