Retrieve available color themes for PDF reports. Choose one to style your generated report.
List available color themes for PDF reports.
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": "list_themes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' inherently implies a non-mutating read operation, which is a useful cue. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential edge cases (e.g., empty list, sorting). The transparency is adequate for a simple listing tool but not rich.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the context from sibling tools, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could be improved by mentioning the output format, but the current level is adequate for a list operation.
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 there are no parameter descriptions to add meaning. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail since there is none.
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 ('List') and a clear resource ('available color themes for PDF reports'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating it provides a themed list, while siblings are for generating reports.
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 description implies this tool is a prerequisite for generating reports with themes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since it is the only listing tool among siblings, the intended usage is apparent but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.