Retrieve every pin placed in the garden to review marked locations and keep the design plan complete.
Get all pins in the garden
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": "get_pins"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Get' makes clear this is a non-mutating read and 'all pins' signals there is no filtering or pagination. It does not disclose ordering, whether deleted or hidden pins are included, or what a pin record contains, which are real gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 or redundancy. It is arguably over-terse, but 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 simple zero-argument read with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but stops short of describing the shape or meaning of a returned pin, leaving the agent to discover the payload by calling it.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the fact that no scope arguments are accepted. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 ('Get all pins') plus a scope qualifier ('in the garden'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like get_objects or get_full_state, but among add_pin/delete_pin it is self-evidently the read path.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for retrieving pin data (e.g. get_full_state or get_objects), and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.