List all pages for a project (metadata only; each page has id, name, slug, etc.).
Args: project_id: The project ID. limit: Max number of pages to return (optional; 0 = no limit). offset: Number of pages to skip (optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that only metadata is returned ('each page has id, name, slug, etc.'), telling the agent this is a lightweight listing rather than full page content.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is terse and readable. It is slightly padded by restating 'project_id: The project ID', but overall there is little waste.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still summarizes the returned shape as metadata. Pagination is addressed via limit/offset semantics, making it complete enough for an agent to call correctly.
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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so for all three parameters: project_id, limit, and offset. It even clarifies the non-obvious semantics that limit=0 means no limit, which the bare schema default of 0 would not convey.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all pages for a project') and scopes the result as 'metadata only', which separates it from get_page (single-page retrieval) in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 implied: this is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_page for a known project_id. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between listing and fetching.
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.