units.listList rooms at the selected hotel. Use a returned room ID with units.get or units.occupancy. Use units.listTypes for room types. Returns up to 100 rooms per page. Set page to the returned page.next to continue. A next value of 0 marks the last page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1. Omit for the first page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / pageAdded value: +{
+ "default": 1,
+ "description": "Page number, starting at 1. Omit for the first page.",
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: a 100-room page cap, iterating with page.next, and the sentinel next=0 for the final page. It stops short of describing per-room fields, but the output schema covers those.
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?
Five short sentences, purpose first, then routing, then pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
Given a single optional parameter, an output schema, and annotation coverage of the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: pagination loop termination. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.
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 only parameter is fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining how to drive it across pages (set page to the returned page.next, 0 means done), which is semantics the schema cannot express.
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 scoped to 'the selected hotel', and explicitly distinguishes itself from units.listTypes and routes returned IDs to units.get/units.occupancy.
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 follow-on tools and the condition that selects each: use a returned room ID with units.get or units.occupancy, use units.listTypes for room types. Clear when to use what.
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.