List saved reference images used as visual baselines for UI tests. Retrieve available baselines to compare screenshots or verify expected visual states.
Lists the saved reference images (visual asserts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Lists'), implying no side effects, but does not mention return format, pagination, or any access constraints. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the subject, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention the shape of the returned data (e.g., an array of image references), but the verb 'Lists' implies a list, so this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic listing operation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist.
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 ('Lists') and a specific resource ('saved reference images'), clearly conveying that this tool returns a collection of visual assets. It distinguishes from the sibling 'baseline_get' by implying a listing action rather than retrieving a single item, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'baseline_get' or how it fits into a workflow. The description only states what it does without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when listing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.