list_drawingsLists available CAD and PDF drawings with key dimensions so you can locate the correct waterjet assembly, layout, or part schematic.
List the CAD drawings (converted from DWG: table general arrangement, workshop layout, cutting head, height sensor arm, X bellows) and the PDF drawings (table dimensions, ON/OFF valve holder, abrasive hopper air assembly, check valve machining) with key dimensions.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior via the word 'List'. It says nothing about whether all drawings are always returned, ordering, pagination, or what 'with key dimensions' means in the response.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good, but the two long parenthetical enumerations of every drawing name inflate the text and largely restate what the return value will contain. A shorter scope statement ('CAD drawings converted from DWG plus PDF drawings, with key dimensions') would convey the same routing information.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the domain scope well but omits the basics an agent would want: that it is a safe read, that it returns the full set unfiltered, and roughly what each entry looks like beyond 'key dimensions'.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to document. The description's mention of 'key dimensions' in the payload is a small extra signal about output content.
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 and resource ('List the CAD drawings ... and the PDF drawings') and enumerates the concrete artifacts covered, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as list_documents or get_drawing.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus get_drawing (single drawing) or list_documents (broader document listing), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage must be inferred purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.