List all Rich Menus on a LINE channel and identify which one is set as the default for every user. Use it to audit menu assignments and verify default configuration.
All Rich Menus on the channel, plus which one is the default for every user.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes the per-user default rich menu, which is useful return-behavior context, but it says nothing about pagination, limits, or whether 'every user' is aggregated or enumerated.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly weakens the framing but wastes nothing.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it only partially does so: it says what is returned (all menus plus defaults) but not the shape, ordering, or size limits. Adequate for a zero-param read, but leaves real gaps.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is nothing further for the description to clarify.
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 resource (Rich Menus on the channel) and specifies the distinguishing payload ('which one is the default for every user'). An agent can tell this is a read/list operation on rich menus, though it never explicitly names the sibling line_link_richmenu to contrast with.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The agent must infer that this is the lookup tool to run before line_link_richmenu, but nothing in the text states that relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.