List every design parameter in the active CST project with its name, expression, and evaluated numeric value.
List all design parameters in the current CST project with their names, expressions, and evaluated numeric values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior (list) with no side effects, but provides no additional context beyond purpose, such as performance implications or permission requirements. The description is adequate but minimal.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or extra information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand its purpose and invocation.
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 input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it adds value by specifying the output context (names, expressions, values), which goes beyond the empty schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists all design parameters in the current CST project, specifying the returned information (names, expressions, numeric values). It uses a specific verb ('list') and distinguishes from siblings like cst_get_parameter (single get) and cst_set_parameter (set).
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 implies use when needing a full list of parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_get_parameter. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, which is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.