Retrieve saved taste profiles with rule and corpus counts plus last-updated timestamps to review, compare, or select the right design context for UI generation.
List locally stored taste profiles with rule/corpus counts and last-updated timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying that profiles are locally stored and that results include counts and timestamps, helping the agent understand the output shape.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource ('List locally stored taste profiles') and then adds the key output details in a compact and efficient way.
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?
For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description sufficiently shares what the agent will receive: rule/corpus counts and last-updated timestamps. It also adds 'stores on the local device' context, which is helpful for distinguishing behavior and nothing necessary is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100% by default because the properties object is empty. A baseline of 4 is appropriate here.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List locally stored taste profiles,' clearly identifying the action and target. It also specifies meaningful output traits (rule/corpus counts, last-updated timestamps) that distinguish this from related tools like get_taste_profile.
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 usage context is implied by the verb 'List' and the account of the resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it instead of get_taste_profile or create_taste_profile. It conveys obvious usage context without formalizing exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.