Retrieve all Nomad namespaces from the connected cluster to view available environments and their identifiers.
List Nomad namespaces.
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_namespaces"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only repeats the tool name with the addition of 'Nomad'. It does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether the list is paginated, returns all namespaces, or requires specific permissions. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not elaborated.
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 sentence with minimal words: 'List Nomad namespaces.' It is front-loaded with the action and includes no fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not mention the shape of the returned data, potential empty results, or any API-specific details. While the tool is simple, a bit more context about the response would make it 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 no parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema coverage. Since there are zero parameters, the description is not required to explain them, and the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 the verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'Nomad namespaces', which is a distinct resource from sibling tools such as list_jobs, get_node, and list_deployments. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from related tools.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no explicit mentions of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar operations, so an agent gets no directional help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.