Retrieve a paginated list of showcases, optionally filtered by service, while enforcing account permissions for public data.
List showcases. Backend account permissions and ownership checks apply. Required permissions: public
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| service | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does add useful behavioral context by disclosing that backend account permission and ownership checks apply and that "public" permission is required. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, return shape, or the accepted values for the service filter, which for a no-annotation read tool leaves gaps.
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?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though the terseness partly reflects under-specification rather than genuinely earned brevity.
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 values need no explanation, but the description leaves the parameters entirely unaddressed at 0% schema coverage and gives no indication of what a showcase is or when to use this versus sibling list tools. For a filtered-list tool it 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% — all three parameters carry placeholder descriptions like "acedatacloud_list_showcases_limit" with no real meaning. The description adds nothing about limit, offset, or service, so the service filter in particular is left completely undocumented; pagination semantics of limit/offset can only be guessed from convention.
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 clear verb+resource ("List showcases"), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling list tools (list_apis, list_datasets, list_integrations, etc.), leaving the agent to infer what a "showcase" is and when this list is the right one.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the other list_* siblings, and no context about what a showcase represents. The only conditional context is the permissions note, which does not help selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.