Returns a JSON-schema catalog of available runtime commands, optionally filtered by category, so MCP clients can discover and validate CST Studio Suite automation commands.
Return the JSON-schema catalog of the runtime commands.
| 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 behavioral burden. It implies retrieval but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or whether it has side effects, rate limits, or pagination.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-style catalog tool.
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 details need not be in the description. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves important gaps around parameter use and sibling-tool selection, making it only minimally 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the optional 'category' parameter, its meaning, allowed values, or filtering effect. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, though the parameter is optional and the schema itself shows its type and null default.
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 and resource: 'Return the JSON-schema catalog of the runtime commands.' This is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cst_runtime_list_tools_tool, cst_toolbox_list_tools_tool, or cst_runtime_describe_tool.
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 guidance is given, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The description only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer when this catalog tool is preferable to sibling list/describe tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.