list_pagesEvery published page with its canonical URL, or one page as plain text with slug. Use when you need to cite or link a yestechie.com page. (REST: GET /api/agent/v0/pages[/{slug}])
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": "list_pages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape in each mode (canonical URLs vs. plain text) and that only published pages are included. It says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or whether any auth is required for a listing that returns 'every' page.
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 compact, front-loaded clauses with the primary listing mode first, followed by the REST path hint. Nothing is redundant or buried, though the REST endpoint note is of marginal value to an agent calling the MCP tool.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both call modes and the shape of each response, which is the core need. It still leaves the agent guessing about pagination/limits on the unpaginated 'every page' listing and about how this differs from get_page.
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 0%, so the description must explain the single `slug` parameter, and it does: supplying a slug switches to single-page plain-text mode, omitting it returns the full list. That is the meaningful semantic an agent needs, though it never states whether the slug is required or what happens on an unknown slug.
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?
States a specific resource and the two output modes: 'Every published page with its canonical URL, or one page as plain text with slug'. The verb is implicit (list/retrieve), and the overlap with the sibling get_page is never acknowledged, so an agent can't fully disambiguate from that tool.
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?
"Use when you need to cite or link a yestechie.com page" gives a genuine usage context. But it offers no when-not conditions and, critically, does not say how this differs from the sibling get_page, which appears to do the single-page lookup this description also claims.
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.