data_list_collectionsList collections declared in an owned site's .shiply/data.json with current record counts. Empty list means the site has no manifest yet — scaffold one with shiply data init.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | owned site slug |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"owned site slug"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with a read operation. It adds valuable context: the tool returns current record counts, and an empty list means no manifest exists. It also suggests a CLI command for scaffolding. No contradictions with 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 two sentences: the first directly states the purpose, and the second adds actionable context for an edge case. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded and efficient.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it lists collections with counts and explains empty results. It might be enhanced by noting any ownership constraints or limits, but it is sufficient for a simple read tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a single 'slug' parameter described as 'owned site slug.' The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 specific resource 'collections declared in an owned site's .shiply/data.json with current record counts.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like data_insert and data_query by focusing on listing collection metadata. The mention of an empty list hinting at scaffolding further clarifies the tool's purpose.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list collections) and interprets an empty result as a signal to scaffold a manifest. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for data manipulation, though this is implied by the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.