Lists all registered construction element types—columns, arches, windows, roofs—so you can identify available architectural components for generative design.
List all registered construction element types (columns, arches, windows, roofs, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List all registered ... types' implies a complete, read-only catalog and the word 'registered' hints these are the supported/valid types, but there is no statement about whether the list includes custom entries, its size, or ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with the examples parenthetically placed; nothing is wasted and the key noun phrase comes first.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys enough to call it correctly: what it enumerates and what kind of values to expect. It could add how the returned type names are consumed downstream, but that is a minor gap.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required to enumerate the catalog.
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 ('List') and resource ('registered construction element types') and clarifies with concrete examples (columns, arches, windows, roofs). This distinguishes it reasonably well from design_list_architecture_styles, though it never explicitly names that sibling or contrasts 'elements' with 'styles'.
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 guidance and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/enumeration call, presumably useful before adding architectural elements, but nothing in the text says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.