Extend MCP

List evaluation items

list_evaluation_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

List an evaluation set's items — file pairings only; expected outputs are not included in summaries (evaluations group). Item IDs feed update_evaluation_item / delete_evaluation_item and subset runs. Follow any llmContext guidance included in results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size (default 25).
`sortDir`	No	Default desc.
`environment`	Yes	"TEST" = the Test (development) environment, "PRODUCTION" = live. Must match a granted target from get_me (an API key pins one environment).
`workspaceId`	Yes	Target workspace (ws_...). Must be a granted workspace — get_me lists the accepted values.
`nextPageToken`	No	Opaque cursor from the previous page.
`evaluationSetId`	Yes	Evaluation set ID (ev_...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes
`llmContext`	No
`nextPageToken`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that summaries omit expected outputs, that items are file pairings, and that llmContext guidance in results should be followed — useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact: three sentences, no filler, with the core behavior and key exclusions front-loaded. The parenthetical '(evaluations group)' is slightly cryptic, but it does not meaningfully hurt clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the important behavioral edges: what is excluded from results, how item IDs should be used, and that llmContext guidance may appear. The only mild gap is not explicitly contrasting with list_evaluation_sets, but the item-level scope is sufficiently clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented with defaults, enums, and value format guidance. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond noting that item IDs are operationally important, which concerns results more than input parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('an evaluation set's items') and immediately distinguishes the tool by stating 'file pairings only; expected outputs are not included in summaries'. It also names downstream consumers of the item IDs, making the tool's role in the evaluations workflow unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates the primary use case: retrieving item IDs to feed update_evaluation_item / delete_evaluation_item and subset runs. It does not explicitly name list_evaluation_sets as the sibling to choose instead for set-level listing, but the item-level scoping makes the intended context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Extend MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource+action combination, and the descriptions actively disambiguate potential overlaps (e.g., extract_data vs parse_document, detect_form_fields vs edit_pdf, get_file vs get_file_upload). The consistent verb_noun prefix pattern makes the semantic boundary of every tool immediately recognizable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern is highly consistent across all nine domains (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, run_*, get_*_run, get_*_batch, publish_*_version). Minor deviations exist: deploy_workflow_version vs publish_*_version for the same freeze-a-draft concept, and get_form_detection_run doesn't mirror its detect_form_fields counterpart.

Tool Count2/5

86 tools is a very heavy agent-facing surface, well past the 25+ threshold. The count is inflated by the near-identical 13-tool lifecycle repeated across extract, classify, and split (each with list/get/create/update/publish/runs/batches/versions), and while each tool has a distinct purpose, the sheer volume makes selection harder.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycles are thoroughly covered: create → update → publish → run (single and batch) → poll → cancel → delete-run → list runs/versions. Notable gaps include no delete tool for extractors, classifiers, splitters, workflows, or evaluation sets, and edit/form-detection runs have no list endpoint (documented workaround: keep run IDs). These are hygenic gaps that don't block primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?