list_destinationsList destinations from the database, optionally filtered by region or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | Filter by region name, e.g. 'Matabeleland North' | |
| category | No | Filter by category, e.g. 'National Park' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the return format. The limit parameter hints at pagination, but it is not explained. The agent is left guessing about 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no superfluous words, making it efficient. However, it sacrifices some completeness, which prevents a perfect score.
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 tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and mentions filters, but lacks details on return values, pagination, or defaults. It is complete enough for a basic understanding but could be improved.
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 67% (region and category have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: it merely repeats 'filtered by region or category'. It does not explain the limit parameter or provide examples, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'destinations', and the scope 'from the database, optionally filtered by region or category'. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_destination (single) and list_itineraries (different 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. It does not explain that it is for browsing all destinations, while get_destination is for a specific one, or that other tools handle itinerary management. The description only mentions optional filtering without any contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.