List and search custom directories with their field definitions in a Kaiten workspace. Use query, limit, and offset to find the directories you need.
Find existing custom directories with field definitions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| next_offset | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The only added context is that results include field definitions; nothing is said about pagination despite limit/offset parameters existing.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, for a paginated list tool sitting among near-identical siblings, the description omits pagination semantics, query semantics, and any sibling disambiguation, leaving real gaps.
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 0% for three parameters (limit, query, offset), so the description must compensate and it does not — it never explains what `query` filters on or that limit/offset paginate the results. Per the low-coverage rule, the description falls short of the burden.
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 a specific verb+resource (find custom directories) and adds that results carry field definitions, which distinguishes it from a bare list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named sibling kaiten_list_custom_directory_records or kaiten_list_custom_properties.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling list_custom_directory_records that an agent could easily confuse this with. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.