list_methodsNeed to know which methods a Smalltalk package provides? Retrieve a complete list of methods in any package by supplying its package name.
Get list of methods in a package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | The name of the package |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Get list' phrasing is consistent with those. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether inherited methods are included or how results are ordered, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 short sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and scope are all present and front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 read-only enumeration with one required parameter and an available output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. Minor gaps include not clarifying whether the package must already be installed or how the result set relates to sibling source-retrieval tools.
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 schema fully documents the only parameter with a description ('The name of the package'), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra detail beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly names the operation ('Get list') and the resource ('methods in a package'), scoped by the package_name parameter. It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_method_source or list_classes.
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 alternatives such as get_method_source, search_methods_like, or list_classes. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.