Retrieve paginated content query analyses for a project, including status and scores. Use project_id to filter results.
Content queries (keyword analyses) with status and scores, paginated. Credits: 0, read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: no credit consumption and read-only access. It stops there, saying nothing about pagination limits, total counts, ordering, or authentication/scope requirements for project_id.
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?
Two tight fragments with the resource and the key operational facts (read-only, zero credits) front-loaded. Nearly no waste, though the parenthetical gloss and the cost note could be tightened further.
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 not be described, and the description signals pagination. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, an agent lacks enough to choose between this and its sibling listing/creation tools.
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%, so the description must compensate. 'Paginated' loosely implies limit/offset, but neither parameter is explained (defaults, max values, page semantics), and project_id scoping is never mentioned.
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 resource (content queries, glossed as keyword analyses) and form (list, paginated, with status and scores). The list verb is implied by the tool name rather than the description, and no sibling such as get_content_query or create_content_query is named, so differentiation is left to the name pattern.
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 statement of when to use this listing versus get_content_query (single) or create_content_query. 'read-only' and 'Credits: 0' hint at a safe read context but give no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.