List selected wallpaper materials with surface, width and primary use cases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional. Return only the material with this id. | |
| limit | No | Optional. Page size, default 50. | |
| offset | No | Optional. Number of materials to skip, default 0. | |
| priority | No | Optional. Filter by priority tag, e.g. brandschutz, robust, effekt, nachhaltig, feuchtraum. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Return only the material with this id.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Page size, default 50.",
+ "maximum": 50,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Number of materials to skip, default 0.",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / priorityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Filter by priority tag, e.g. brandschutz, robust, effekt, nachhaltig, feuchtraum.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns surface, width, and use cases, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, but annotations carry most of the burden.
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?
A single efficient sentence front-loads the verb and resource with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list 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?
Given the tool is a simple read-only list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits pagination behavior (offset/limit interplay) and the relationship to recommend_material, which would make it more complete for an agent choosing between them.
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 four parameters (id, limit, offset, priority) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb (List) and resource (wallpaper materials) and hints at the returned fields (surface, width, primary use cases). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling recommend_material, but 'List' vs 'recommend' gives a reasonable distinction.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus recommend_material, which is the natural alternative for material selection. The sibling names are not referenced, and no context is given about when to call it.
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.