list_profilesList CoolerControl fan profiles with their temperature sources, covering fixed duties, temperature-to-duty graph curves, and mixes. Use it to discover which profile to inspect or change.
Fan profiles (fixed, graph curves temp→duty, mixes) with their temperature source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the daemon's raw JSON instead of the condensed summary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what profile types and temperature source are returned, but it does not mention how the optional raw parameter changes output behavior or whether results are ordered or paginated.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and its important subtypes. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what is returned. It omits the raw-mode behavior, but that is already documented in the schema.
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 100%, and the single optional raw parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add anything about the parameter, so baseline 3 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 identifies the resource precisely: fan profiles, including fixed, graph curve, and mix types, plus their temperature source. It does not explicitly say 'list' or name the sibling tools it differs from (create_profile, delete_profile, apply_profile), but the title and content make the purpose unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_profile, create_profile, or update_profile. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the read-only annotation, with no explicit exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.