Retrieve a JSON list of all Pulumi stacks for managing infrastructure as code configurations.
[SAFE] List all Pulumi stacks in JSON format
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "iac_pulumi_stacks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workDir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is safe (read-only) and returns JSON. However, it does not explain behavior on invalid workDir, error handling, or output format details beyond JSON. Adequate for a simple list tool but minimal.
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 very concise (one line) and front-loaded with key information. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for behavior, parameters) and could include more detail without harming conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but fails to explain the workDir parameter or provide usage context. Sibling tools are numerous, but the description does not help the agent differentiate or understand when to use this tool.
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 single parameter 'workDir' has no description in the input schema, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or effect. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no semantic value to the parameter.
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 clearly states the tool lists all Pulumi stacks in JSON format, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Pulumi stacks'). The [SAFE] tag further clarifies it is read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iac_terraform_state.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, required prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The [SAFE] tag implies safety but does not substitute for explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.