list_page_fragmentsList all reusable page fragments for the team. Fragments are shared step sequences (e.g. "Login", "Dismiss Cookies") that can be inserted into multiple Journeys via the use_fragment action.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or whether any authentication or special permissions are required. For a simple list tool, this is a notable gap.
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 concise, with only two sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context about what fragments are. Every sentence earns its place, and the main verb is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the scope ('for the team') and the domain concept (fragments as shared step sequences). However, it does not describe the return structure, which would be helpful but is not critical for such a simple operation.
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 zero parameters, and per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description rightly omits parameter details, and the schema already documents that there are no properties.
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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all reusable page fragments for the team.' It also explains what page fragments are and their purpose, distinguishing this from other fragment-related tools like create/delete/update_page_fragment.
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?
The description provides context about fragments being reusable step sequences, implying this tool is for viewing existing fragments. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'use create_page_fragment to add new ones'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource (targets, runs, findings, incidents, etc.) and action. A few close pairs like active_runs/list_runs and mute_finding/create_muting_rule could confuse, but descriptions clarify the distinctions.
The majority of tools follow verb_noun naming (create_target, get_target, delete_journey). A few outliers use noun phrases (active_runs, daily_trends, system_health, team_stats) which slightly breaks the pattern, but overall the convention is predictable.
74 tools is extreme for any MCP server. Even for a comprehensive monitoring platform, this overwhelms agents with too many granular operations (e.g., enable_all_tests vs disable_all_tests vs update_test, or import_targets duplicating create_target). A more consolidated set would be appropriate.
The tool surface is remarkably complete for the monitoring domain: full CRUD for targets, journeys, rules, reports, secrets, and fragments; plus run triggering, incident management, findings handling, SEO tracking, guest scans, and admin tools. Only maintenance windows lack an update operation, which is minor.