list_instructionsLists valid engineering-instruction IDs and resource URIs so coding agents can discover and request the correct procedure when its ID is unknown.
List valid engineering-instruction IDs and their resource URIs. Call this before requesting an instruction when the ID is not already known.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds what is returned (valid IDs and URIs) and its role as a prerequisite lookup, but says nothing about pagination, scale, or whether the list is filtered by permissions.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste; the resource scope is front-loaded and the usage condition follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, and the description still characterizes the return as IDs plus URIs. For a parameterless read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object is unambiguous.
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 (list) and resource (engineering-instruction IDs and their resource URIs), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_procedures, so the agent must infer the domain split from the descriptions themselves.
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?
"Call this before requesting an instruction when the ID is not already known" gives a clear trigger condition plus a when-not condition (ID already known). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but for a zero-param discovery endpoint the routing guidance is essentially complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.