List all page playbooks of this tenant (with match rules, greeting mode, position).
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_page_contexts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned attributes (match rules, greeting mode, position), but doesn't mention behavior like pagination, performance implications, or data limitations. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.
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. It conveys the action, scope, and included fields without any wasted words. Perfectly concise.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient for a list operation. It states breadth ('all') and scope ('of this tenant'), which are the only context needed. No gaps apparent.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema is complete and the description doesn't need to explain parameter syntax. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no unnecessary param info, which 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('page playbooks'), clearly indicating it retrieves all such entities for the tenant. The parenthetical adds key attributes (match rules, greeting mode, position). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like page_context_stats or resolve_page_context, but 'all page playbooks' clearly implies a list-all operation.
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 purpose implies usage: when you want to list all page playbooks. However, there are no explicit 'use this instead of X' exclusions or alternative recommendations. Siblings like resolve_page_context and upsert_page_context are contextually related, but no guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over them.
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.