List available water presets and filter by category—surface, reflection, foam, shoreline, caustics, or ice—to select the right water look for generative art scenes.
List available water presets, optionally filtered by category (surface, reflection, foam, shoreline, caustics, ice).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is the key behavioral fact, but nothing is said about return shape (names vs. IDs), ordering, or whether results are static — notable since there is no output schema.
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 filtering option trailing. Slightly wasteful only in repeating the enum literals that the schema already carries, but it costs little.
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 low-complexity, single-optional-param listing tool this covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The only gap is the absence of any hint about what the returned presets look like, which matters because there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter is already documented with its full enum. The description merely restates the same six category values, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource ("List available water presets") that is clearly distinct from the many design_list_* preset siblings and from the design_design_add_water_* mutators. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before calling add_water_* tools, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or what alternative exists. No prerequisites or follow-up tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.