list_my_pagesList the pages you have published to dochost, newest first. Paginated; returns compact records (no page bodies).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| pages | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| hasMore | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details: sorting by newest first, pagination, and that records are compact (no bodies). No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Information is presented efficiently and in a logical order.
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 simple list tool, it covers the key aspects: ownership, sorting, pagination, and record format. Output schema exists but is not shown; however, description compensates with mention of compact records. Minor gap: no mention of maximum result set or whether offset counts from start.
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 describes limit and offset with constraints, but description only says 'paginated' without explaining parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not provide sufficient semantic detail.
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 states the tool lists pages published by the user, sorted newest first. The verb 'List' and resource 'pages' are specific, and the title aligns. This differentiates it from siblings like delete_page or get_page.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or get_page. The description does not mention exclusions or context for selection.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: delete, get account, get page metadata, list pages, publish new, update existing. No overlap or ambiguity.
All names follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (delete_page, get_account, get_page, list_my_pages, update_page) with only 'publish' being a single verb but still clear and consistent with the pattern.
6 tools cover the core operations of a page hosting service (CRUD, list, account info) without being too many or too few. The scope is well-scoped.
The tool set covers CRUD and listing, but notably get_page does not return the page body, so agents cannot retrieve published content via API. Missing tools like 'search pages' or account management, but the core workflow is largely complete.