list_status_pagesList status pages with visibility, slug, and public URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 25) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (from list_projects) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Result rows | |
| pagination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond restating the list action; it doesn't mention pagination behavior, default limit, or any side effects. With annotations carrying the main risk disclosure, the description adds minimal value.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly conveys the action and resource without verbosity, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the simple list operation, strong annotations, and existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and pagination is documented in the input schema. The description plus annotations leave no critical gaps for agent use.
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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including explanations for limit, cursor, and project_id. The description provides no additional parameter semantics, so it doesn't exceed what the schema already documents. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('List status pages') with a clear resource and even hints at key output attributes ('visibility, slug, and public URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_projects or list_monitors by naming the unique resource.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is given, but the tool name and description make it clear that it is for listing status pages, distinct from listing other resources. There are no stated exclusions or alternatives, so usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.