List the tools AppBoard has alternatives for, most-covered first, with the slug to pass to appboard_alternatives_to. Use it to resolve a tool name to a slug, or to answer "what tools do you cover alternatives for".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | how many targets to return (1-50, default 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the result ordering ('most-covered first') and that each result includes a slug for use with appboard_alternatives_to. The action 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and there is no contradiction 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?
Two sentences carry the action, output characteristics, ordering, and two concrete use cases without filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and understand.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how results are ordered, how to use the returned slug, and why an agent would call the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the only parameter, limit, is already documented with 'how many targets to return (1-50, default 10)'. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 action and resource: 'List the tools AppBoard has alternatives for', with a clear ordering ('most-covered first') and output purpose ('the slug to pass to appboard_alternatives_to'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like appboard_alternatives_to and appboard_find_alternatives.
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 explicitly gives use cases: 'Use it to resolve a tool name to a slug, or to answer "what tools do you cover alternatives for"'. It references the related sibling appboard_alternatives_to, which helps an agent understand the downstream relationship, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.