list_parcelsLists parcels in a specified cluster and reports each parcel's stage, such as ACTIVATED, DISTRIBUTED, or DOWNLOADED, to verify distribution and activation status.
Parcels do cluster e seu estágio (ACTIVATED, DISTRIBUTED, DOWNLOADED...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does almost nothing with it: it does not say the call is read-only, whether it requires an authenticated CM session, or how large the parcel list can get. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical list of stage values (ACTIVATED, DISTRIBUTED, DOWNLOADED...), which is genuinely useful but thin.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being tight, complete writing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, but with no annotations and an entirely undocumented required parameter the definition leaves an agent without enough to call the tool confidently. It also switches to Portuguese while the name, title, and sibling tools are English, which hurts consistency.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter "cluster" is undocumented in both schema and description. Phrasing the resource as "Parcels do cluster" only weakly implies that cluster scopes the result; it does not say whether the value is a cluster name, display name, or ID.
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?
"Parcels do cluster e seu estágio" identifies the resource (parcels) and the returned field (stage), so an agent can infer it lists cluster parcels. But it never states a verb like list/retrieve and never distinguishes itself from nearby inventory tools such as list_clusters or list_services.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative or sibling tool. The agent must guess whether this is the right call for parcel inventory versus a broader cluster listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.