variantsList plan versions with active status, walls, rooms, area, furniture, and issues to compare alternatives before editing the active design.
Plan versions (tabs): rows [i,name,active,walls,rooms,m2,furniture,issues]. Edits apply to the active version; change them with edit_variants.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / properties / rows / descriptionRemoved value: -"Plan versions: [i, name, active, walls, rooms, m², pieces, issues]"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: edits apply to the active version, and version changes belong to edit_variants rather than this tool.
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?
It is front-loaded, extremely short, and every fragment carries information: the resource, returned row fields, and the routing note for edits. No sentence is wasted.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this is complete enough. The description need not explain return values further, and it adds the key edit-routing caveat.
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?
There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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 definition identifies the resource as plan versions (tabs) and sketches the row shape, so an agent knows it returns version records. It also distinguishes itself from edit_variants, though the listing verb is supplied mainly by the title rather than the description itself.
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?
It explicitly says edits apply to the active version and directs edits to edit_variants, which is a clear alternative for mutation. It does not spell out broader when-to-use conditions, but for a parameterless list tool the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.