list_pagesList page URLs on https://sitemcp.dev/ (from its sitemap, or links on the homepage).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | Only return URLs containing this substring |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the source ('from its sitemap, or links on the homepage'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether results may be incomplete or dynamic.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical about the data source is valuable and earns its place, and the description remains appropriately compact for a simple 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 low-complexity, optional-parameter tool with read-only and open-world annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, resource, and source. It lacks usage guidance relative to siblings and an explicit statement of return format, but the phrase 'List page URLs' reasonably covers the return value.
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 only 50%: filter has a schema description, but limit has only numeric constraints. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit parameter or enhance understanding of how filter interacts with the URL list.
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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('page URLs on https://sitemcp.dev/'), which is specific and useful. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_links; the reader must infer that 'page URLs' and the sitemap/homepage source distinguish it.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_links or search_site. It states a data source, but no conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios are given, so an agent receives no routing help.
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.