Retrieve ExcaliDash drawings available to your account API key, with pagination and search, so you can choose the right drawing before editing or managing it.
List ExcaliDash drawings available to the account API key. Use this before selecting a drawing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the account API key scope, which is useful, but does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or whether it reads from a cache. For a simple list operation, this is average but not rich in context.
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 concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage context. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is straightforward, and the description provides the essential purpose and temporal usage. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention what the tool returns, such as drawing IDs or metadata, nor does it discuss default pagination or search semantics. This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.
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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters (limit, offset, search). While the schema provides names and defaults, the description fails to clarify the meaning of 'search' (e.g., search by name, content, etc.) or how pagination works, leaving significant interpretation to the agent.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'ExcaliDash drawings available to the account API key', which precisely defines the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like select_drawing by indicating this is a listing operation, not a selection or creation.
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 phrase 'Use this before selecting a drawing' provides explicit temporal guidance relative to the sibling tools. It tells the agent when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.