spss_list_variablesLists variable names and labels from SPSS .sav files, with optional search-term filtering, so you can inspect dataset metadata without installing SPSS.
List all variable names and their labels from an SPSS .sav file. Optionally filter by a search term. Does not require SPSS to be installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| file_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It usefully discloses that SPSS does not need to be installed, and 'List' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but it says nothing about file access errors, encoding, or performance on large .sav files.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause contributes 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?
The tool is a simple read operation with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation; only the absence of sibling differentiation and error behavior keeps it from being fully complete.
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 0%, so the schema supplies no parameter meaning on its own. The description compensates for the 'search' parameter by explaining it acts as an optional filter, and 'from an SPSS .sav file' implies the file_path argument, but neither parameter's format or expected values are specified.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List all variable names and their labels from an SPSS .sav file.' It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like spss_read_metadata or spss_file_summary, which plausibly also surface variable metadata.
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 never says when to choose this over spss_read_metadata, spss_read_data, or spss_file_summary. The only conditional content ('Optionally filter by a search term') describes a parameter, not a usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.