List inscriptions in an Ordinals collection by slug, returning IDs, numbers, content types, owners, with pagination.
List inscriptions in an Ordinals collection. Returns inscription IDs, numbers, content types, and owners.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Collection slug/symbol | |
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (inscription IDs, numbers, content types, owners), but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, ordering of results, or how the 60-item page cap and offset pagination behave in practice. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation 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 sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the return-field summary follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is pagination/ordering behavior, but for a simple list tool with a fully documented schema this is close to complete.
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 100%, so slug, limit, and offset are already documented in the schema with defaults, bounds, and meanings. The description adds no semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verb and resource: 'List inscriptions in an Ordinals collection.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like get_collection_listings or list_runes by naming the resource type. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from get_address_inscriptions or get_tx_inscriptions, but the collection scoping is stated.
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 many sibling inscription tools (get_inscription, search_inscriptions, get_address_inscriptions, get_tx_inscriptions). Usage is only implied by the scope word 'collection' and the required slug. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.