Lists T-spline form features and their bodies for a design or selected component without modifying the model.
List the form (T-spline) features of the design or one component with their T-spline bodies; changes nothing.
Returns {"forms": [{"feature": ref, "name", "component", "health": {"state", "message"}, "bodies": []}], "count"};
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | No | Component or occurrence for a new form feature (default: the root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it explicitly says 'changes nothing' and documents the return shape down to body fields. It omits permissions, ordering, and error behavior, but for a simple read-only list this is substantial context.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence spends its length on return structure that is necessary because no output schema exists. The dense return spec is justified and no sentence is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by documenting read-only behavior and the full forms/body return structure, while the one parameter is covered by the schema. Nothing essential for correctly calling this list tool appears missing.
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 single component parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including entity refs and the default root behavior. The description only echoes 'design or one component' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, 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?
Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the form (T-spline) features' and 'T-spline bodies', scoped to the design or one component. It is clearly an enumeration tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as form_inspect or form_get_tsm.
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?
It states that the tool lists form features and 'changes nothing', implying a read-only enumeration use, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus form_inspect/form_get_tsm guidance. No alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.