Skip to main content
Glama
lichtblick-docs-mcp

lichtblick-docs-mcp

Official

List @lichtblick/suite API symbols

extension_api_list
Read-only

Lists every type, interface, and constant exported by @lichtblick/suite to help you identify the right symbol name before calling the detail lookup.

Instructions

Lists every type, interface and constant exported by @lichtblick/suite, the Lichtblick extension API. Use it to find the right symbol name, then call extension_api_get.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "extension_api_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add scope, and it does by stating the listing is exhaustive across types, interfaces and constants. It does not mention return shape, ordering or size limits, which would matter for a large API surface, so it stops short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its scope front-loaded before the follow-up action. Every clause contributes to either identifying the tool or routing to the next call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with annotations covering read-only behavior and no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what is returned and what to do next. The only gap is that it says nothing about the volume or format of a full API listing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the baseline applies. The absence of any input also matches the description's claim that it simply lists everything.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Lists every type, interface and constant exported by @lichtblick/suite') and names the scope of content precisely. It is clearly distinguishable from extension_api_get, which retrieves a single symbol, because this one enumerates the whole surface.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit two-step workflow: use this tool to find the right symbol name, then call extension_api_get. The alternative is named along with the condition that selects it, leaving little to infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.