GET /items?prefix=: items, those whose keys start with prefix (e.g. "tools/"; all by default), in key
order, without their content (get_item reads one), at most limit (1 to 100, 32 by default). next: for the
next page, pass it as after (null: this was the last).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load: it discloses that results are sorted by key, that item contents are omitted, that the page size is capped at 100 (default 32), and how pagination terminates. It is silent on authentication despite an `api_key` parameter and says nothing about rate limits or error behavior.
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?
Three dense clauses with no filler, front-loading the resource and scope before filtering, paging, and the get_item pointer. The backticked field names make it scannable despite the telegraphic style.
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 four-parameter list tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies the meaningful behavior (ordering, content omission, paging) an agent needs. The only real gap is authentication guidance around `api_key`, which is undocumented everywhere.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives `prefix` semantics with an example ("tools/") and its default of all items, the `limit` range 1-100 with default 32, and the `after` cursor's origin and null termination. The `api_key` parameter is never mentioned in either schema or description.
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 `items`, keys starting with `prefix`, in key order, without content) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_item, which reads a single item's content. An agent can pick between list_items, get_item and put_item without opening any schema.
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?
Names the alternative (get_item) and its selecting condition, and explains the paging loop: pass the returned `next` as `after`, null means last page. No explicit when-not-to-use beyond that, but the routing is clear.
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.