List knowledge-base pages to quickly find and access wiki, run, or note entries. Filter by type, search text, or paginate through results to locate specific information for monitoring and debugging.
List knowledge-base pages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous response | |
| search | No |
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 the description adds no extra behavioral context. It doesn't mention pagination, default limits, ordering, or that the cursor continues iteration. Since annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description fails to add any value beyond a bare verb, so this is below the baseline.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the parameter complexity.
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, 4 parameters (one with an enum), and 25% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'kind' or 'search', what the return format is, pagination behavior, or how it differs from other list tools. An agent would need to consult other sources to use 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 25% (only 'cursor' has a description), so the description must compensate by explaining the meaning of 'kind', 'limit', and 'search'. It does none of this. The agent gets no additional insight into parameter semantics beyond the enum values and type constraints, leaving it to guess how to filter or paginate.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List knowledge-base pages.' It is distinct from get/update/delete operations on KB pages and from other resource lists like invariance_node_list or invariance_list_runs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate among the 'kind' variants. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.
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 alternatives like invariance_kb_page_get or other list tools. No mention of filtering, pagination, or how the search/kind parameters affect results. The description provides no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.