Lists existing custom directories with their field definitions so you can find the right directory and understand its fields before managing custom values.
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.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / offset / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.0.2Does 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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, nor about what 'query' filters against. An output schema exists, which excuses it from explaining return values, but the operational behavior is still opaque.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity; one more sentence on filtering and pagination would earn its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return format needn't be described, but the description still leaves the three input parameters unexplained and gives no context for choosing this tool over adjacent listing tools. For a paginated, filtered list endpoint, that is too thin.
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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to compensate. 'limit' and 'offset' are conventional enough to infer, but 'query' is ambiguous — the description never states whether it matches directory names, field names, or something else.
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 verb 'find' plus resource 'custom directories' gives a workable purpose, and 'with field definitions' hints the response includes schema metadata. However, it does not distinguish this from near-name siblings like kaiten_list_custom_directory_records or kaiten_list_custom_properties, so an agent must guess which listing tool to pick.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many list/get siblings. The agent gets a purpose but no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.