Get a listing of all UI Toolkit .uxml and .uss files in the project for quick reference of UI assets.
List UI Toolkit .uxml and .uss files.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_ui_documents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.2v1.5.1v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the action. It does not mention whether the listing is recursive, what properties are returned, or if there are any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which it fails.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, but it sacrifices important details. While concise, it leaves the agent with too many unknowns, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameter details, the description should explain what the output looks like (e.g., file paths, names) and any constraints. It fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly specifies the tool lists UI Toolkit .uxml and .uss files, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly indicate the scope (e.g., whole project or current directory), which slightly reduces clarity.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_assets_by_extension or other list_* tools. The agent receives no context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.