list_module_packsLists DLC-like AirMCP module packs and indicates which ones are available in the current runtime configuration.
List DLC-like AirMCP module packs and whether each pack is available in the current runtime configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packs | Yes | ||
| active | Yes | ||
| configured | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.16.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v2.14.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral detail that the list includes availability status in the current runtime, which is a meaningful piece of information not present in annotations. This meets the lower bar set by strong annotations and adds a useful nuance.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and one key behavioral nuance. It is concise and free of fluff. The only minor downside is the potentially ambiguous 'DLC-like' jargon, but this does not detract significantly from clarity.
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 tool with zero parameters, a robust set of annotations, and an output schema provided, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers both the primary action (list) and the key return detail (availability). No extra configuration or side effects require explanation, so this is adequate for the low complexity.
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?
There are zero parameters in the schema, so per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and no further details are required for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'DLC-like AirMCP module packs', and adds the availability check dimension, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_shortcuts, list_notes, and list_directory. The phrase 'whether each pack is available in the current runtime configuration' adds a unique scope that clarifies the tool's purpose.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as list_shortcuts and list_notes exist, but no differentiation or explicit exclusions are given. The phrase 'current runtime configuration' hints at context but does not direct an agent on when to select this tool over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.