list_collectionsRetrieve your collections oldest first, including each slug, name, and live snippet count; use a returned slug to create, update, or fetch snippets in that collection.
List your collections, oldest first, with each slug, name and live snippet count. Use a slug as the collection of create_snippet, update_snippet or fetch_collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior (result ordering is oldest-first, and counts are of live snippets), but says nothing about whether the list is complete or paginated, which matters for a listing tool.
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 short sentences, zero padding, with the result shape front-loaded ahead of the downstream usage note. Every clause carries information.
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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and ordering, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The only omission is any statement about result completeness or size limits, which is minor for a zero-parameter list tool.
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?
The tool takes no parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies; the mention of the slug as the downstream input is a small bonus.
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 collections) plus the ordering (oldest first) and the exact fields returned (slug, name, live snippet count). It is clearly distinct from fetch_collection, which retrieves a single collection by slug, and from the snippet-oriented siblings.
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?
Makes the tool's role in the workflow explicit: call it to obtain slugs, which are then consumed by create_snippet, update_snippet and fetch_collection. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives for the case where the slug is already known, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.