List elevators configured in a LenelS2 S2 NetBox system to review access-control assets. Provide a pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call.
Lists elevators configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetElevators).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| STARTFROMKEY | No | Optional. Pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. Beyond that it only names the upstream wrapper ('NBAPI GetElevators'), which is implementation provenance rather than useful behavioral context such as pagination behavior or result scope; it is consistent with the annotation but adds little.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the action and resource first; no padding or restated title. The parenthetical wrapper reference is marginally useful at best but does not undermine the sentence.
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 read-only list tool with one fully documented optional parameter and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still omits what the listing returns and how result sets interact with the cursor, which forces the agent to discover pagination semantics empirically.
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% and the single optional STARTFROMKEY cursor is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no pagination or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 clear verb ('Lists') and resource ('elevators') plus the system scope ('configured on the NetBox system'), which is enough to separate it from unrelated siblings like get_readers or get_holidays. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent structural resources such as get_floors or get_partitions, but the resource noun is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. Nothing tells the agent whether this is the right call versus get_floors/get_mercury_panels or when a single-elevator lookup would be preferred; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.