list_signalsReads a raw waveform file and returns the names of all signals it contains, so you can inspect or select simulation outputs.
List signals in a raw file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw_path | Yes | ||
| workspace_root | No | Optional per-call workspace root override. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what a raw file is, whether a missing or malformed path errors, or how large result sets are handled. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single short sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than true crispness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does not say whether the result is signal names, metadata, or counts. For a tool whose entire value is the shape of its listing output, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50%: workspace_root is documented in the schema while raw_path is not. The phrase 'in a raw file' loosely implies raw_path points to a raw simulation output file, giving marginal semantics beyond the bare string type, but it does not specify path format or resolution behavior.
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 names a verb (List) and a resource (signals in a raw file), which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like add_wire or remove_component. However, it does not differentiate from adjacent read/list tools such as list_measures or list_steps, nor does it clarify what a 'signal' is in this domain.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_measures or read_waveform. The agent must infer from the name alone that this inspects a raw simulation file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.