List 46 particle presets for generative art, optionally filtered by category such as falling, floating, scatter, mist, trailing, flow, or mark-field to find suitable effects.
List all 46 particle presets, optionally filtered by category (falling, floating, scatter, mist, trailing, flow, mark-field).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: "List" implies a safe read, and the exact count of 46 plus the full category taxonomy is useful context. However, it never says what a preset record contains (name, id, parameters?) or that the returned identifiers are meant to feed into design_add_particles, which matters since no output schema exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with the key facts (count, optional filter) stated first. The parenthetical enum list is somewhat redundant with the schema but is short enough not to be wasteful.
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 one-optional-parameter list tool this is close to complete: it establishes what is returned (46 presets), the filter dimension, and the category vocabulary. The remaining gap is the absence of an output schema paired with no description of the preset fields or follow-up usage, which would help an agent chain into the particle-add tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's enum is fully documented, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely repeats the same seven enum values verbatim, adding no filtering semantics (default behavior when omitted, case sensitivity, whether multiple categories are allowed).
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 and resource ("List all 46 particle presets") plus a concrete scope (category filtering), so an agent immediately knows this is an enumeration tool. The word "particle" distinguishes it from the many sibling preset listers (plant, pattern, water, atmosphere, terrain), though it never states that contrast explicitly.
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?
"Optionally filtered by category" implies the filter is optional and hints at when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to omit it, and no mention of the sibling tool that actually applies these presets (e.g. design_add_particles). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.