list_zonesRetrieve all colored zones on the canvas with their rectangles and member node IDs, so you can inspect and manage node groupings.
Zones (coloured areas that group nodes) with their rectangles and member node ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only behavioral contribution is naming the returned fields (rectangles, member node ids); it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or scope, so it adds modest value over the annotations.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the payload described immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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 burden of explaining return values, and it does so at a high level (rectangles, member node ids). For a zero-parameter list tool this is largely sufficient, though ordering or pagination behavior is left unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-project listing.
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 name plus description identify the resource (zones) and even define it parenthetically as 'coloured areas that group nodes', which is genuinely clarifying. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_nodes or list_links, but the resource is unambiguous and the return content is stated.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_nodes, list_nodes, or list_links, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.