splitters.test_page_rangePreview page assignments and review flags for a fixed page-range splitter without saving a run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| page_count | Yes | ||
| splitter_id | Yes | ||
| project_slug | No | Slug of an owned project. Optional only when the account has exactly one visible project; required for accounts with multiple visible projects. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preview | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / project_slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Slug of an owned project. Optional only when the account has exactly one visible project; required for accounts with multiple visible projects."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read preview. The description adds the key behavioral detail that nothing is saved. It does not explain whether preview results reflect unsaved changes to the splitter, whether the page_count parameter can differ from the splitter's stored configuration, or any rate limits. Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key differentiator (no save). Every clause earns its place.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with four parameters and only 25% schema coverage, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to know what page_count or version control in a preview. Annotations cover the safety profile, but parameter semantics remain under-specified.
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 25%: only project_slug has a description. The description itself mentions no parameters, so splitter_id, page_count, and version are undocumented beyond their types. page_count is critical to a page-range preview and its meaning is not clarified in either place, which is a real gap.
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 states a specific verb (preview) and resource (page assignments and review flags for a page-range splitter), and distinguishes itself from the sibling run_page_range by saying "without saving a run." However, it doesn't name siblings directly, and the purpose is clear enough to select without opening the schema.
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?
Implied usage: preview before running, since it says "without saving a run." No explicit when-to-use versus splitters.run_page_range or splitters.create_page_range, and no prerequisites like needing an existing splitter_id. The contrast with saving a run is useful but not a full routing guideline.
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.