Retrieve menu names or submenu items from Affinity's menu structure by providing a navigation path. Use an empty path for the menu bar, or specify menu and submenu names to explore.
List menu names: [] = menu bar, ["Vector"] = its items, ["Vector", "Geometry"] = submenu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the recursive path semantics (menu bar vs. items vs. submenu), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about error behavior for invalid paths, whether the result is a flat name list or a structured tree, or pagination/size limits.
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 dense line with the core semantics front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the telegraphic style ('its items') is borderline cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally state the return shape (list of menu names, and whether nested menus are included) and invalid-path behavior. The parameter is well covered, but the calling contract for results is left implicit.
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 coverage is 0% (the single 'path' param is only typed as array-of-string-or-null), so the description must compensate — and it does, by concretely mapping [] / ["Vector"] / ["Vector","Geometry"] to three distinct return scopes. It stops short of clarifying case sensitivity, matching rules, or behavior for a nonexistent path.
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 menu names') and immediately clarifies with three path examples showing what each path depth returns. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'menu' tool, which is likely a related menu-operation tool, so an agent must infer the boundary from context rather than the text.
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?
The examples imply a drill-down pattern (start with [] then descend), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus siblings like 'menu', 'click', or 'set_field'. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.