List symbol definitions in the Vectorworks document with their folder paths, filtered by name or folder substring to locate fixtures and other resources quickly.
Symbol definitions in the document's resource list, with their folder path; filter by name and/or folder substring (e.g. fixture lookup).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| name_contains | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that folder paths accompany results and that filters are substring matches, but it says nothing about the 1000-item limit default, truncation behavior, or case sensitivity of the substring match.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the filtering behavior second, with no filler. The phrasing 'Symbol definitions in the document's resource list' is slightly noun-heavy but still efficient.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema (so return shape needs no explanation), the description covers what is listed and how to filter. It is nonetheless incomplete on the limit/pagination behavior and on how 'folder' matching interacts with 'name_contains' when both are supplied.
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%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies the matching semantics for two of three parameters ('name and/or folder substring'), but the 'limit' parameter is entirely unmentioned, leaving the caller with no idea that results can be capped at 1000.
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 ('Symbol definitions in the document's resource list') and adds what is returned ('with their folder path'), which distinguishes it from sibling listers like vw_list_layers and vw_list_classes. It never names an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.
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 parenthetical '(e.g. fixture lookup)' hints at a use case, and the filter clause implies when the tool is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over vw_find_objects or vw_vs_lookup, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an open document).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.