Check if an item ID is included in a list expression, enabling validation of GSA model selections or filters before operations.
Check if item is in list expression.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| list_expr | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Check' implies a read-only query, but no permissions, side effects, rate limits, or return behavior are described.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too terse to be appropriately sized for a tool with three required parameters and no annotation coverage.
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?
Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description still leaves essential input semantics and usage context unexplained. For a three-parameter query tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this is materially incomplete.
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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'item' and 'list expression' only at a name level, and never explains the required 'option' parameter or the expected syntax of 'list_expr'.
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 states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('item is in list expression'), but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as gsa_entities_in_list. The terms 'item' and 'list expression' remain vague without domain context, leaving the purpose only minimally clear.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the check does, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.