checklist_listEvery checklist with its category, version, step count and how many runs came from it. Filter by category or by a word in the name. Returns at most 500 rows, newest change first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Only checklists in this category, matched after the same lower-case hyphenation applied on create | |
| contains | No | Only checklists whose name contains this text, matched case-insensitively |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the 500-row cap, the ordering by newest change, and the filtering semantics. It doesn't describe pagination or what happens when the cap is hit, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.
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 with zero waste. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, followed by filters and constraints. 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?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, filters, row limit, and ordering. It doesn't mention pagination or the exact shape of the response, but the annotations cover safety and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (category and contains) with their matching semantics. The description adds a brief mention of filtering by category or name word, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('checklists'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (category, version, step count, run count). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like checklist_show by describing a list operation with filters and limits.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's scope (all checklists, with optional filters) and its constraints (at most 500 rows, newest change first). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like checklist_show, but the list-vs-show distinction is clear from the sibling names and the description's emphasis on multiple rows and filtering.
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.