List CanonicalSurveyItem rows (PRN-050 item-level dedup spine). Each row aggregates one normalized item stem across N source instruments via source_items[].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| canonical_items | Yes |
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?
Annotations already establish the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that each row aggregates a normalized item stem across multiple source instruments via source_items[], which goes beyond what the schema or annotations reveal.
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?
Two tight sentences deliver the core action, the domain context, and the aggregation model with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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?
For a simple paginated list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and row semantics, and an output schema exists. However, it omits routing guidance against sibling tools and leaves pagination parameter behavior undocumented, creating a noticeable but not severe completeness gap.
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 parameters are limit and offset, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or default behavior. The parameter names are conventional enough to be partially inferable, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('CanonicalSurveyItem rows') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('PRN-050 item-level dedup spine'). It also explains the core aggregation behavior ('normalized item stem across N source instruments'), making the tool's role clear relative to sibling lookup/search tools.
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 guidance is given about when to use this list tool versus the sibling canonical_items.lookup or canonical_items.search tools. The listing intent is implied, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives named to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.