list_listsList REACH lists for the authenticated user.
Optionally filter by project or name prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of returned lists | |
| search | No | Optional prefix search on list name | |
| project_id | No | Optional project ID to restrict results to a specific project |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lists | Yes | List summaries |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / lists / descriptionPrevious value: -"List summaries. created_at is an ISO-8601 timestamp."New value: +"List summaries"Output schema / properties / lists / items / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO-8601 creation timestamp",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "expires_at": {
+ "description": "ISO-8601 expiration timestamp",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "file_ready": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "is_expired": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "latest_job_operation": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "latest_job_state": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "list_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "list_name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "project_id": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "project_name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "record_count": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "lists": {
+ "description": "List summaries. created_at is an ISO-8601 timestamp.",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "lists"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns lists for the authenticated user and supports optional filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens when no filters are provided. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. The second sentence adds filter options concisely. No wasted words, though it could have been slightly more informative about behavior.
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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and optional filters. It doesn't mention pagination or default behavior, but the output schema and annotations fill in much of the context. Slightly more detail on result ordering or default scope would push it higher.
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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, search, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'filter by project or name prefix' which maps to project_id and search, adding slight context but not much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('REACH lists') and notes it is for the authenticated user. It distinguishes itself from siblings like show_list and preview_list by indicating it lists multiple lists, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The title is redundant but the description adds clarity.
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 implies usage context: listing lists for the authenticated user, with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_list or preview_list, nor does it mention exclusions. The optional filters give some context but no direct comparison to siblings.
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.