List all libraries with configured documentation sources.
List all libraries that have known documentation sources configured.
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": "list-available-libraries"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool lists libraries with documentation sources, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether authentication or state effects exist, though the operation is simple enough that this is minimally adequate.
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, well-structured sentence of 8 words that front-loads the action ('List all libraries'). No word is wasted, and it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the filtering condition and lists libraries. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of names or objects), which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the filtering condition ('known documentation sources configured'), which is not present in the empty schema. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.
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 uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'libraries' with a clear filter condition 'that have known documentation sources configured'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-categories or search-docs.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor are there any when-not-to-use or prerequisite mentions. The description only states the purpose without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.