List every line in the project: returns {lines: []} in one call, with no paging. Each entry reports lineKey, name, active, docsShared, publishedAt, endpointCount, and its draft state (draftRevision, hasDraft, scheduledPublish). A project with no lines yet returns an empty lines array rather than an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: it returns a `{lines: []}` envelope in one call, includes specific fields per entry, and has special handling for empty projects. No contradiction exists, and no destructive or side-effect behavior needs disclosure.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action and scope first, then the return format, then the per-entry fields, and finally the edge case. Every sentence adds useful information and nothing is redundant.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the response envelope, the fields included, no-paging behavior, and the empty-array edge case. There are no meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It appropriately focuses on the output shape and behavior rather than adding unnecessary parameter details.
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 and resource ('List every line'), specifies the scope ('in the project'), and gives the exact return envelope. This distinguishes it from the many line-related siblings like activate_line, create_line, and delete_line without ambiguity.
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?
It clearly conveys when to use the tool: to retrieve the complete line list in one call with no paging, and it reassures that an empty project returns an empty array rather than an error. It doesn't name an alternative or exclude use cases, but no sibling tool appears to duplicate this exact listing operation.
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.
