Retrieve thread catalog entries for a standard, filtered by diameter, pitch, or title, to support helical thread design.
List size rows of one thread standard table (d/p/title), with helical-thread-friendly shaping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| pitch | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| diameter | No | ||
| standard | Yes | ||
| pitch_max | No | ||
| pitch_min | No | ||
| title_query | No | ||
| diameter_max | No | ||
| diameter_min | No | ||
| database_path | 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 must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only offers the cryptic 'helical-thread-friendly shaping'. It does not mention pagination, output format, ordering, filtering effects, or whether the operation is read-only; for an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.
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 short and has no padding, which is good, but the phrasing 'size rows' and 'helical-thread-friendly shaping' is jargon-heavy and not self-explanatory. The compactness comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
This is an 11-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotation safety profile. The description does not explain what a returned row looks like, how filtering works, how pagination behaves, or when this tool is preferable to closely related thread catalog tools, so it is not complete enough for reliable 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at diameter/pitch/title fields and does not explain the 11 parameters. Nothing clarifies standard, limit, offset, min/max filters, title_query, or database_path semantics.
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') and resource ('one thread standard table') and indicates the returned fields are diameter/pitch/title, which distinguishes it from standard-listing siblings. However, 'size rows' and 'helical-thread-friendly shaping' are ambiguous enough that the core purpose is not fully crisp.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_thread_catalog_standards, list_helical_thread_v1_candidates, or resolve_thread_catalog_designation. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context cues beyond the implicit 'this lists entries' meaning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.