List all lists. List all saved lists for your organization with pagination, search, filtering, and sorting. Retrieves data without changing records or spending credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so most of the safety profile is structured data. The description adds one genuinely new fact not in annotations – that reads do not spend credits – but says nothing about pagination limits or the default result ordering beyond what the schema shows. With annotations lowering the bar, a 3 fits.
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?
Three short sentences, but the first ('List all lists.') merely restates the title and is immediately superseded by the second sentence. Folding it into the scoped sentence would make the definition tighter with no loss.
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 no-required-parameter, read-only collection endpoint with annotations covering side effects and no output schema, this is nearly enough: it states scope, capabilities and credit neutrality. Only the shape/nature of returned list objects is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a list tool.
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 description names the four capability axes present in the nested query object (pagination, search, filtering, sorting), which maps loosely onto page/per_page, search, source_type and sort. It adds no defaults, enum values or format detail beyond the schema's own per-field descriptions, so it neither compensates fully nor is useless.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all saved lists for your organization') and scopes the result set to the caller's org. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the single-list sibling dealmachine_get_lists_list_id by saying 'all lists', but never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'list all lists' suggests it is the collection-level read, contrasting with the *_list_id getter, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative is named. An agent must infer routing from sibling names.
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.
