list_pagesList pages of visible messages in a public room, returning bounded, resumable results. Use it to browse public chat history without accessing private rooms.
List pages with visible messages in a public room. Results are bounded and resumable; private rooms are not accessible through this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond the annotations: results are bounded and resumable, and private rooms are excluded. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but this is a solid addition.
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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence carries the key constraints and exclusions without any wasted wording.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with zero schema descriptions and no explicit alternatives named, the description omits required/optional parameter guidance and cursor usage details needed for confident 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 0% and there are three parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies that room must be public and that limit/cursor provide bounded, resumable pagination, but it never identifies parameter names, types, required status, or cursor format.
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 (pages), scoped to public rooms with visible messages. It does not name siblings such as read_messages or list_rooms, so differentiation relies on the scope rather than explicit routing.
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?
Includes a when-not condition (private rooms are not accessible) and notes results are bounded and resumable. However, it does not name alternatives for private-room access or explain when to prefer this over read_messages, list_rooms, or other pagination tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.