Fetch paginated evaluation cases for a suite by supplying its ID, with optional limit and cursor for navigation, to review and manage test data.
List cases for an eval suite (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | opaque pagination token from previous response next_cursor; pass through unchanged | |
| suite_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds only 'paginated', which is partly redundant with the cursor/limit parameters, but it does not misrepresent behavior and no contradiction exists.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and operation.
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 simple paginated list operation, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: suite_id is required, pagination is signaled, and cursor semantics are documented in the schema. A richer definition could clarify ordering or default limit, but these are minor for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 only 33% (cursor only), so the description carries some weight. It clarifies that suite_id selects an eval suite and that limit/cursor relate to pagination, but it gives no detail on defaults or response shape beyond the schema.
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 action and resource: 'List cases for an eval suite'. The phrase 'for an eval suite' adds scope that distinguishes it from generic case listing tools, though it does not name a sibling such as invariance_case_list.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like invariance_case_list or invariance_eval_case_get. The only usage cue is implied by the resource scope; there is no when-not-to-use or explicit alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.