FreeCAD MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large numbers of documents, or any performance characteristics. The description provides output content but lacks operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place - it specifies the action, target, and exact data fields returned without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with no wasted text.

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 (0 parameters, has output schema), the description provides adequate context. The output schema will document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain return format details. It clearly states what the tool does and what information it provides. For a simple listing tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless listing tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all open FreeCAD documents'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on document listing rather than analysis, execution, inspection, or other operations. The description provides specific details about what information is included (names, labels, file paths, object counts, modification status).

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 usage context by specifying 'open FreeCAD documents,' suggesting this tool is for inventorying currently loaded documents. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_document_graph (which might provide structural information) or other sibling tools. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.