Lists available case templates, each with a reference solution for verification. Use it to find a starting simulation case before creating or importing your own.
List case templates (each has a reference solution for verification).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | ja |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral content by noting that templates include a reference solution for verification, but it says nothing about return format, pagination, or what language filtering does.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is terse, but the missing detail is a completeness issue rather than unnecessary verbosity.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be extensive. However, it omits language parameter semantics and any guidance for choosing among sibling list/open tools, leaving moderate gaps.
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 sole optional parameter, language, has an enum and default in the schema but 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema exposes allowed values, but it is unclear whether language refers to template language, output language, or filtering behavior.
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 case templates'. The parenthetical adds that each template has a reference solution for verification, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as list_cases, list_examples, or open_example.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like list_cases, list_examples, or open_example. It implies browsing templates but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed