bruno_list_environmentsList all environments for a Bruno collection without revealing variable values, helping you identify available configurations before executing requests.
List environments available to a Bruno collection without exposing variable values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | Collection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / collection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Collection identifier: the collection's path relative to the workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections), not its display name. It may be nested, for example collections/hotel."New value: +"Collection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections)."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly promises that variable values are not exposed, which is a meaningful safety/security behavior. It does not describe error handling or return format, but for a simple listing operation this is a solid level of transparency.
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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('List environments...') and immediately adds the key differentiator ('without exposing variable values'). Every word 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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose, scope, and the security-relevant behavior. It could be more complete by stating the return shape more explicitly, but the core selection and invocation needs are met.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description: 'Collection path relative to workspace root (as returned by bruno_list_collections).' The tool description adds no parameter details itself, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List environments') and adds the scope 'available to a Bruno collection'. It also includes a distinctive qualifier, 'without exposing variable values', which differentiates it from a tool like bruno_get_environment that would return variable values.
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 clearly scopes the tool to listing environments for a collection and points to bruno_list_collections as the source of the collection path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'without exposing variable values' phrasing gives helpful context for choosing between this and a more detailed environment tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.