List booking pages in the org. Agent keys see only pages on their own agent's calendars.
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": "list_booking_pages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the permission model: agent keys see only pages on their own agent's calendars, which explains why an agent may see fewer results than exist. It does not mention default page size or result ordering, but the schema documents the pagination controls.
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?
Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the scoping caveat second. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 paginated read with no output schema, the description plus annotations and fully documented parameters give an agent enough to call it correctly. A brief note on what a booking page record contains would be the only remaining nicety.
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 100% for both limit and offset, including defaults and ranges, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List booking pages') plus the organizational scope, which cleanly separates it from the get/create/delete booking-page siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the org-wide scope; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_booking_page or how to enumerate pages for a specific agent. The second sentence adds a visibility constraint rather than selection guidance.
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.