More Good Reviews

List Review Pages

listReviewPages

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Review Pages

List the project's review pages, optionally filtered by name, location, or content.

List endpoints are paginated. Use the page and limit query parameters to paginate through results (at most 30 records per page). Check the pagination object in the response (current_page, last_page, total) to determine if more pages exist and whether to continue fetching.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "listReviewPages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Match pages whose internal name contains this text.
`page`	No	Page number to return. The first page is 1. Accepts minimum 1.
`limit`	No	Page size. Accepts an integer from 1 to 30. Defaults to 50.
`filter`	No	has_links keeps pages with an enabled link. has_redirects keeps pages with at least one redirect.
`location_id`	No	Limit the list to the page assigned to this location.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Application-level status code mirroring HTTP 200 on success.
`data`	No	Review pages for this project, ordered by internal name.
`success`	No	Indicates whether the request completed successfully.
`pagination`	No	Page metadata for a list response, after the row payload and link list are removed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a 30-record page ceiling and the exact response fields (`current_page`, `last_page`, `total`) that signal whether to continue fetching. That is real behavioral value beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The body is front-loaded with purpose, then pagination mechanics, in three tight sentences. The only waste is the leading repeat of the tool title, which adds nothing the name field doesn't already convey.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, yet it usefully names the pagination fields an agent must inspect to terminate a fetch loop. Filters and scoping are fully covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing. Minor deduction for the note that `limit` maxes at 30 while the sibling schema states a default of 50, an inconsistency the description doesn't resolve.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the `filter` enum and `location_id` scoping. The description only restates that filtering exists and that `page`/`limit` drive pagination, adding little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 the project's review pages') plus the filterable dimensions (name, location, content). It is clear enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like deleteReviewPage or updateReviewLocation, but it never contrasts itself with getReviewPage, the obvious single-record sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when this tool applies (enumerating review pages, with optional filtering) and explains how to keep pulling results via `page`/`limit`. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative for fetching a single page, so it lands at clear-context-without-exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All More Good Reviews tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?