Show the authenticated user's Cyclesite listings (draft / active / sold). Requires OAuth scope listings:read. Example: 'how are my listings doing?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-20. | |
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses the OAuth scope requirement (`listings:read`) and clarifies the user-specific data scope. It does not detail pagination or return format, but with strong annotations this is adequate.
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 concise sentences with a front-loaded purpose, scoping, and requirement. The example is a single clause. No waste.
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?
Given the simple two-param schema, strong annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, auth, and scope. Minor gap: does not mention the 'all' status option, which could be slightly ambiguous.
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 coverage is only 50% (limit has minimal '1-20.' description, status has no description beyond enum), and the tool description adds no parameter details. It mentions statuses 'draft/active/sold' but omits 'all', which could confuse. No explanation of limit semantics or default behavior.
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 ('Show') and resource ('authenticated user's Cyclesite listings') with explicit statuses (draft/active/sold). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_my_enquiries or get_my_messages, and the example 'how are my listings doing?' reinforces the intended use.
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?
Provides a clear example ('how are my listings doing?') indicating when to use, and scopes the tool to authenticated user's listings. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over listing-query tools like get_recent_listings or search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
