list_developersThe developers with a page on the site, with how many catalogue projects each has.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_developers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the names. Default en. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world, safe read, so the description need not repeat safety. It does add one useful behavioral fact: the list is restricted to developers who have a site page, and each entry carries a project count. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether developers with zero projects appear, which matters for a listing tool.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded before the returned field. Slightly awkward phrasing ('The developers with a page on the site') costs it the top score.
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 one-optional-param read tool with annotations and no output schema this is close to adequate, but the geographic scope ('Oman', present only in the title) and the return shape beyond the project count are left unstated. An agent can call it correctly but cannot fully predict what it gets back.
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%, and the single 'lang' parameter is fully documented with its enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no information about how language affects names or the response, so the 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?
States the resource (developers listed on the site) and what each row carries (number of catalogue projects), which is more concrete than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_projects or get_project, but those are different resources so confusion is unlikely. The 'in Oman' scope from the title is absent from the description itself.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus search_projects or list_areas, and no stated conditions or exclusions. The only implied usage cue is the implicit filter 'developers with a page on the site', which an agent must infer rather than being told.
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.