Retrieve a comma-separated list of holiday keys configured on NetBox. Use this to enumerate available holidays, then fetch details per key.
Lists holiday keys configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetHolidays). Returns a comma-separated key string, not a list of records — use get_holiday per key for details.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals a non-obvious behavior: the result is a comma-separated key string rather than a list of record objects. It does not mention pagination behavior, error cases, or response formatting beyond the key string, but the most important gotcha is disclosed.
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, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical return-format caveat is stated immediately after. Every clause 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 simple read-style tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and the path to richer detail via get_holiday. It could still clarify how STARTFROMKEY affects the returned string, but the schema covers that parameter. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents STARTFROMKEY as an optional pagination cursor. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond implying the tool returns keys; it neither clarifies cursor format nor explains continuation behavior. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 names a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('holiday keys'), and the system ('NetBox'), and distinguishes itself from get_holiday by clarifying it only returns keys. The parenthetical 'wraps NBAPI GetHolidays' adds a useful API mapping without ambiguity.
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 explicitly routes the agent to get_holiday for per-key details, which is a clear alternative. It does not elaborate on when not to use the tool or contrast with other list-type siblings, but the main selection condition (need keys vs details) is present and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.