list_answersList Answers (contract v0), paginated with an opaque cursor. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max answers to return (default: loader's choice, capped 200). | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous list_answers call's nextCursor. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "nextCursor": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "nextCursor"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is redundant. The pagination/opaque-cursor detail is mild added context but is also restated in the schema's cursor parameter.
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 terse sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope. Minor waste in 'Read-only', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.
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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema covering pagination shape, the description supplies the essentials. Only the sibling-selection context is missing, which is a usage-guideline rather than completeness gap.
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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (limit cap/default, cursor origin). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing the opaque cursor, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear specific verb+resource ('List Answers') plus scope notes (contract v0, paginated). However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_answers or list_guides, which an agent must choose between when deciding how to retrieve answers.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to use list_answers vs search_answers for a given retrieval need, or what prerequisites exist.
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.