List all scans as compact records with id, scanUUID, mode, points, file path, and project folder. Rely on stable scanUUID for consistent identification as list positions change.
List all scans as compact records (id, scanUUID, scanMode, points, file path, and the project folder the scan belongs to). Ids are list positions and change when scans are deleted; scanUUID is stable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: 'compact records' warns output is a summary, and the note that ids are volatile list positions while scanUUID is stable is a concrete caveat an agent must know to avoid caching a bad key. It does not disclose ordering, size limits, or auth requirements.
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 sentences, zero filler. The payload (what is listed, what fields come back) is front-loaded, and the id-versus-scanUUID caveat follows immediately as the single most actionable warning.
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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely discharges it by naming the six record fields. What is left unsaid — ordering, whether the list is bounded, whether it spans all projects — is minor for a no-parameter read tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema for the description to clarify. The description instead spends its words on the shape of the returned record, which is a reasonable use of the space.
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 ('List all scans') and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, scanUUID, scanMode, points, file path, project folder), which distinguishes it implicitly from detail-oriented siblings like scanner_scanfile_info. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'List all scans' tells an agent this is the overview/listing entry point, and 'compact records' hints that it is not for full detail. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement despite ten siblings (scanner_scanfile_info, scanner_projects, scanner_tasks) that an agent could easily confuse it with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.