Lists access-control time specifications configured on an S2 NetBox system. Use the optional pagination cursor to continue listing from a previous call.
Lists time specs configured on the NetBox system (wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecs).
| 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 carries the safety profile, so the description is not required to explain that this is a read. It adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond restating the wrapping implementation detail—no pagination behavior, result ordering, or size limits are described despite the cursor parameter hinting at paging.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose stated first. It is efficiently sized, though the '(wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecs)' clause adds little for an agent and could be dropped.
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-only list tool with one optional cursor parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is broadly adequate. The main gap is the absence of any distinction from the closely named singular/group siblings.
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 STARTFROMKEY cursor parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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?
States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('time specs') with scope ('configured on the NetBox system'), so the agent can identify it as an enumeration tool. However, it does not differentiate from the singular sibling get_time_spec or the related get_time_spec_group(s), leaving ambiguity about which to pick.
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?
Usage is only implied by the plural 'Lists' (retrieve all time specs). There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_time_spec (single-item) or get_time_spec_groups, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The '(wraps NBAPI GetTimeSpecs)' note is an implementation detail, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.