prodpad_list_initiativesRetrieve all ProdPad initiatives with pagination to manage product roadmaps. Specify page and size to control results.
List all initiatives in ProdPad with pagination.
Args:
page (number): Page number, default 1
size (number): Items per page, default 25
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| size | No | Items per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results are paginated; it says nothing about ordering, total-count behavior, or how empty pages behave, which would be genuine extra behavioral value.
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 lead sentence is short, front-loaded and carries the whole point. The trailing Args block is redundant with the schema and costs a few lines without adding information, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 paginated list with a fully described schema and complete annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs. No output schema exists, so not describing the returned initiative fields is acceptable, though a one-line note on the result shape or ordering would close the remaining gap.
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 both parameters carry names, defaults and bounds (minimum 1, maximum 100), so the schema already documents them fully. The Args block merely repeats the same defaults with no added meaning or interaction notes; 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 specific verb and resource ('List all initiatives in ProdPad') and adds the pagination scope. It is clearly distinct from prodpad_get_initiative (singular fetch) and the other prodpad_list_* tools, though it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as prodpad_get_initiative or prodpad_search. The only contextual hint is that results are paginated, which is a mechanics note rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.