List evaluation datasets accessible to the calling agent, using pagination to manage large collections. Supports debugging and analysis of agent behavior through dataset inspection.
List eval datasets visible to the calling agent (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | opaque pagination token from previous response next_cursor; pass through unchanged |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction is present. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are scoped to the calling agent's visibility and returned in paginated form, which helps the agent understand what to expect.
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 that communicates the core action, scope, and pagination behavior with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, visibility scope, and pagination. The schema handles the remaining parameter details, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 50%, with cursor fully documented but limit lacking a description. The description's mention of pagination helps the agent infer limit as a page size and cursor as a continuation token, but it does not fully compensate for the missing limit 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 specific verb and resource: 'List eval datasets visible to the calling agent (paginated).' It clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like invariance_eval_dataset_get, invariance_eval_suite_list, and invariance_eval_dataset_examples_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?
The description makes the tool's scope clear with 'visible to the calling agent' and 'paginated,' which contextualizes when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the list-oriented phrasing and pagination signal are sufficient guidance for this simple read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.