List all CST MCP tools with their category, summary, and parameters, optionally filtered by category. Use it to discover available automation and verification capabilities before calling them.
List every CST MCP tool with its category, summary and parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only enumeration but says nothing about whether a CST connection is required, whether results are paginated, or the scope of 'every' (all 80+ tools vs. a category subset).
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the semantic gaps rather than a virtue of precision.
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 return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a catalog tool in a crowded sibling set, the description omits the filtering behavior and the relationship to the other list/manifest tools, which is the context an agent needs to select it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'category' parameter. The description mentions 'category' only as a returned field, not as a filter argument, so it actively fails to clarify whether passing category narrows the list or is ignored. That leaves the parameter's semantics undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (list every CST MCP tool) and describes the payload (category, summary, parameters). However, it offers no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as cst_tool_manifest_tool, cst_toolbox_list_tools_tool, and cst_runtime_list_tools_tool, leaving the agent guessing which lister to call.
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the competing list tools. The agent gets no signal about when this catalog is the right choice versus the manifest or toolbox listers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.