list_templatesLists built-in starter EEG/BCI pipelines such as MI, P300, and SSVEP, so agents can choose a base graph before fetching template details by ID.
List built-in starter pipelines (MI/P300/SSVEP...). get_template(id) for the graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing there is little destructive or authentication behavior to disclose. The 'built-in' qualifier usefully signals that user-created templates are out of scope, and the output schema covers the return shape, so remaining gaps are minor.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste; the listing scope is front-loaded and the sibling pointer follows. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters there is no schema gap to fill. The description supplies the domain examples and the sibling route; the only modest omission is any note on ordering, pagination, or whether templates are user-scoped.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics the description needs to compensate for, and the schema is fully self-describing.
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 (List) and resource (built-in starter pipelines) and grounds it with concrete examples (MI/P300/SSVEP) that an agent can map to the domain. It also names the sibling get_template, so the agent can distinguish the enumeration tool from the detail tool without opening either 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 routes the agent to get_template(id) for the graph, which clarifies the split between listing and retrieving details. It implies when to use this tool (enumerate built-ins) but doesn't state exclusions such as saved/user templates, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.