List all terminal tabs with their IDs, titles, active state, and workspace.
List all tabs with their IDs, titles, active state, and workspace.
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": "onda_tab_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a read-only listing operation and specifies the output fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or note any scope limitations (e.g., across all workspaces or current workspace), leaving minor ambiguity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the expected output. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what fields will be returned. The only slight gap is that 'all tabs' could be ambiguous regarding scope (e.g., all tabs in the current workspace vs. all globally), but the tool name and context likely resolve this. Overall, the description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies. It adds no parameter-specific details, but none are required.
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 states the specific action ('List all tabs') and the resource ('tabs'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like onda_pane_list or onda_tab_focus. It also enumerates the returned fields (IDs, titles, active state, workspace), leaving no doubt about the tool's purpose.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate all tabs and their attributes), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid. Since the purpose is clear and there are no side effects, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.