item_childrenList the child items of a ScienceBase catalog item. The catalog is hierarchical — collections and folders contain sub-items (use get_item to check has_children). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max children, default 15, max 30. | |
| parent_id | Yes | The id of the parent catalog item, e.g. "58e64ab1e4b09da6799ac732". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "parent_id": "58e64ab1e4b09da6799ac732"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 25,
+ "parent_id": "58e64ab1e4b09da6799ac732"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds 'Keyless' indicating no authentication, but lacks details on pagination, empty results, or error scenarios, which are beyond what annotations cover.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that convey purpose, context, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity and the presence of good annotations, the description covers the main points. However, it omits details about pagination or the limit parameter behavior that would be helpful without an output schema.
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 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb (list) and the resource (child items of a ScienceBase catalog item), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_item and search_items by specifying the hierarchical context and suggesting checking has_children via get_item.
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 explicit guidance to use get_item to check has_children before calling, creating a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks.
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.