list_my_pagesList the pages you have published to dochost, newest first. Paginated; returns compact records (no page bodies).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | ||
| pages | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| hasMore | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "hasMore": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "limit": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "pages": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "createdAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "expiresAt": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "format": {
+ "enum": [
+ "markdown",
+ "html"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "likes": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "views": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "url",
+ "format",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "pages",
+ "total",
+ "limit",
+ "offset",
+ "hasMore"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral traits beyond that: pagination, order (newest first), and the fact that records are compact without bodies. This informs the agent about response characteristics without contradicting annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then adds ordering and pagination details, with no filler words.
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?
With the output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, ordering, pagination, and a key limitation (no page bodies), making it complete for this tool's complexity.
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 has no descriptions for limit/offset (0% coverage). 'Paginated' hints at their purpose but doesn't explicitly explain each parameter or how they interact. However, for a simple list tool with standard pagination semantics, this is adequate baseline.
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 ('List') and resource ('pages you have published to dochost'), with additional detail on ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_page (single page) and publish/update/delete (mutations).
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 implies appropriate usage: it lists the user's own published pages, is paginated, and returns compact records without page bodies, hinting that get_page should be used when full content is needed. While no explicit alternatives are named, context is clear.
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.