Retrieve Zendesk Help Center articles with pagination and sorting controls to access and organize content.
List Help Center articles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| sort_by | No | Field to sort by | |
| per_page | No | Number of articles per page (max 100) | |
| sort_order | No | Sort order (asc or desc) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as pagination behavior, return shape, or how the result set is scoped. No contradiction exists, but no additional transparency is offered.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices potentially useful details for brevity.
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 should explain what the response contains, but it only says 'List Help Center articles.' It also omits clarification of pagination, sorting defaults, and the distinction from search_articles, leaving important gaps for correct selection and invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact, such as default sort order or pagination limits, but the schema already carries the necessary information.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List Help Center articles') and is clearly distinct from siblings like list_tickets or get_article. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from search_articles or get_help_center_structure, leaving some purpose ambiguity.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_articles or get_help_center_structure. The description only states the action; it does not mention when listing is appropriate or when another tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.