Identify metric thread standards compatible with helical-thread V1, listing bundled size rows and filtering by pitch, diameter, or title.
List only helical-thread-V1-compatible metric standards with bundled size rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | ||
| pitch_max | No | ||
| pitch_min | No | ||
| title_query | No | ||
| diameter_max | No | ||
| diameter_min | No | ||
| database_path | No | ||
| limit_per_standard | No |
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 behavioral burden. It conveys read-only list behavior and the output scope includes size rows, but it does not explain pagination, database_path handling, or return shape.
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?
One front-loaded, single-purpose sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key filtering constraint is stated immediately.
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 list tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits behavior around filtering, pagination, database_path, and what 'bundled size rows' means concretely in the response.
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?
With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but does not explain any parameter. Parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, yet units, filter semantics, defaults, and database_path behavior remain undocumented.
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 specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('helical-thread-V1-compatible metric standards'), and a clear differentiator ('with bundled size rows'). This distinguishes it from sibling thread-catalog and listing tools, even without naming an alternative explicitly.
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 gives clear usage context: the tool is for listing only V1-compatible metric standards that bundle size rows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'only' restriction communicates the selection scope clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.