Retrieve all Matryoshka Mind Map entries with titles, IDs, and TODO status, including shared maps, before referencing a mapId in other tools.
自分のMatryoshka Mind Mapの全マップ(タイトル・ID・TODOかどうか)を返す。他のツールでmapIdを指定する前に、まずこれで存在するマップとそのIDを確認する。自分が所有するマップに加え、他のユーザーから共有されて見えているマップも含む(共有マップのroleが'viewer'の場合は閲覧のみで、書き込み系ツールは使えない)。アプリ側での直接の編集(新規マップ作成等)はこのツールを呼ぶまで反映されないため、ユーザーから状態を尋ねられたときは記憶に頼らず必ず呼び直すこと。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results include both owned and shared maps, that 'viewer' role implies read-only with no write tools available, and that app-side edits are not reflected until this tool is re-called. It does not cover return ordering, pagination, or limits, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Four sentences, entirely front-loaded with what is returned and the prerequisite that a call is needed before using mapId elsewhere. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant constraint (shared-map visibility, viewer read-only, state freshness).
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: return contents, the prerequisite sequencing relative to other tools, the shared-map permission caveat, and the freshness warning. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully enumerates the fields returned (title, ID, TODO flag) even though they are not 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?
States a specific verb and resource: returns all of the user's Matryoshka Mind Maps with title, ID, and TODO status. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_elements (which lists elements within a map) and from create_map/delete_elements, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly says to call this first to resolve existing maps and their IDs before passing mapId to other tools, and mandates re-calling whenever the user asks about state rather than relying on memory. It also states the write restriction when the caller's role on a shared map is 'viewer'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.