List DataLens workbooks with bounded pagination and an explicit completeness marker.
List DataLens workbooks with bounded pagination and an explicit completeness marker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_pages | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| continuation | No | Resume the returned scope-bound inventory cursor. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.34Input schema / properties / continuationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Resume the returned scope-bound inventory cursor.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts (pagination is bounded, results carry a completeness marker), but it never explains what the marker means or how truncation affects the agent.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. "Explicit completeness marker" is slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted and the key qualifiers come first.
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 no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden. It mentions a completeness marker and a scope-bound cursor but never clarifies how to detect an incomplete inventory or how continuation relates to the marker, leaving a real gap for a paginated listing tool with three parameters.
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 coverage is only 33% — continuation is documented, but max_pages and page_size carry no descriptions. The phrase "bounded pagination" gestures at the page-cap parameters but adds no semantics (e.g. whether hitting max_pages truncates silently or what defaults imply), so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ("List DataLens workbooks") plus scope qualifiers (bounded pagination, completeness marker). An agent can tell this is the workbook inventory lister, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like dl_workbook_entries or dl_admin_inventory.
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 named alternative despite several closely related sibling tools (dl_workbook_entries, dl_admin_inventory). Usage is only implied by the verb "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.