Lists the original PDF manuals behind the knowledge base, including citation tags, file names, page counts, and titles, so you can trace answers to their source documents.
The original PDF manuals the knowledge base was built from: tag (as used in citations like [ELEC p.40]), file name, page count and title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It makes clear this is a catalog of source files rather than content, implying a safe read, but it doesn't state whether all documents are returned, ordering, or whether tags are stable identifiers — context that would matter when feeding tags to other tools.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the field list trailing. The field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return fields need not be explained, and for a zero-parameter listing this is close to sufficient. The only real gap is the missing link to sibling tools such as get_source_page, which use the tags this tool emits.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose meaning could be lost, and the description correctly implies the call needs no inputs.
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 names the resource precisely — the original PDF manuals behind the knowledge base — and enumerates the fields returned (tag, file name, page count, title). The verb is only implied by the tool name 'list', but the resource is sharply distinguished from sibling resources like sections and images.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of the citation tag format '[ELEC p.40]' hints that this tool supplies the tags needed to query pages, but it never says when to call this versus list_sections, search_kb, or get_source_page. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.