list_pagesList the files in the draft, with each file's revision.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"site": "<site>"
},
"name": "list_pages"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site slug (e.g. "kopitiam-muar") or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that each returned file includes its revision, which is modest value; it does not explain what "draft" means (unpublished state vs. a specific version), whether results are paginated or ordered, or what permissions are needed.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and the returned detail front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 simple read-only, one-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to adequate. The gaps are the undefined 'draft' scope, no ordering/pagination note, and no output schema, so the description should say more about what comes back than just the revision field.
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% with a single well-documented 'site' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the site parameter or how the draft is determined from it, so baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a clear verb and resource ("List the files") plus a scope qualifier ("in the draft") and states what each item carries (its revision). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like read_page, list_versions, or edit_files, and the name/title say "pages" while the body says "files", which leaves a small ambiguity an agent must resolve.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the bare statement of what it lists. Nothing tells an agent when to pick this over read_page (fetch a single page's content), list_versions (version history), or list_sites (which site), so the choice must be inferred from tool names alone.
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.