Retrieve a user's SPINES book collections with optional persona, category, and pagination filters to browse or manage reading lists.
List the user's collections with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (1-50, default 20) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from previous response | |
| persona_id | No | Filter by persona ID | |
| category_id | No | Filter by category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of default ordering, whether results are paginated via the cursor, or what a truncated result set implies, all of which would be new information.
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?
A single front-loaded clause with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.
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?
For a low-complexity list tool with a fully described schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not explain the paged return shape (no output schema exists) or default ordering, which would help an agent call it correctly, but the missing pieces are modest.
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 limit, cursor, persona_id, and category_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase "optional filters" is already implied by the schema's optional, undescribed-by-tool parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the baseline.
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 (List) and resource (the user's collections), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_collection or list_categories, which also deal with collections/categories.
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?
"with optional filters" hints that filtering is available but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_collection for a single item, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.