Retrieve a range of list elements from Redis up to 1000 items per call, with pagination support for large lists.
A range of list elements, capped at 1000 per call. stop omitted
means "as many as fit within the cap starting at start" — if
truncated comes back true, call again with start advanced by
len(items) to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| stop | No | ||
| start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the 1000-element cap, defines that an omitted stop means 'as many as fit within the cap starting at start', and instructs how to continue pagination via the `truncated` flag with an advanced start. This is rich, actionable behavioral detail.
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 sentences with zero fluff: the first delivers the core purpose and cap, the second explains the omitted-stop semantics and pagination mechanism. The most critical information (cap and continuation) is front-loaded, and every clause contributes essential guidance.
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?
The description covers the key operational details for a paginated list range read: behavior, cap, and continuation logic. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify the return shape; it mentions `truncated` but not the structure of the returned items or error behaviors. For a simple read operation, this is fairly complete but not exhaustive.
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?
Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the behavior of `stop` (omitted means cap-based) and the `truncated` flag for continuation. However, it does not explicitly clarify that `start` and `stop` are inclusive zero-based indices, nor does it describe the `key` parameter beyond its obvious role. It adds partial but meaningful parameter semantics.
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 range of list elements' which clearly indicates the operation retrieves a range from a list, and the context of sibling Redis tools disambiguates it. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase like 'Retrieve a range of elements from a Redis list', so the action is implied rather than stated directly.
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?
The description implies usage for list range retrieval via 'range of list elements' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like redis_hget or redis_zrange. It also omits any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so the selection context is only inferred from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.