Dashboard layouts/versions.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"workspace": "<workspace>"
},
"name": "layouts_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| page_key | No | ||
| workspace | Yes | ||
| include_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, version semantics, or what is returned, leaving a substantial gap for a multi-parameter read 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?
The description is only four words and is under-specified rather than concise. It is not front-loaded with actionable information because there is almost no information to front-load.
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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and only annotation-level safety context, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what `page_key` or `include_code` do, whether results are paginated, or what a 'version' means in this context.
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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining `limit`, `cursor`, `page_key`, `workspace`, and `include_code`. It provides no parameter meaning at all beyond the vague phrase 'layouts/versions'.
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 identifies the resource as dashboard layouts/versions, which is more specific than the bare tool name, but it never states the operation (list, fetch, retrieve) or scope. The agent must infer from the `layouts_get` name that this is a read/list operation.
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 exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools `layouts_update` or `layouts_delete`. The description offers nothing to help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.