Retrieve configured floors from the S2 NetBox access-control system, with optional pagination to continue listing from a previous call.
Lists floors configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetFloors).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lists' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'wraps NBAPI GetFloors' gives implementation context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or potential performance concerns, though the STARTFROMKEY parameter in the schema partially addresses pagination.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant explanation, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus the parameter schema is largely sufficient. It could mention pagination explicitly in the prose, but the schema already documents that behavior, so the main gap is minor.
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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter, STARTFROMKEY, as an optional pagination cursor, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') with a clear resource ('floors') and scope ('configured on the NetBox system'), so an agent can understand the tool's function immediately. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but no sibling tool appears to target floors, so the differentiation need is low.
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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs to list floors, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, but the purpose is straightforward enough that the usage is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.