Retrieve a paginated list of Zendesk macros to browse available predefined actions for streamlining ticket responses.
List macros in Zendesk
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| per_page | No | Number of macros per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the response contains. It is a minimal statement that does not enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
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 short sentence, which is concise and free of fluff. However, it essentially restates the tool name with minimal added value (just 'in Zendesk'). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it lacks any front-loaded key information that would make it more useful.
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?
Given that the tool is a simple list operation with read-only annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is barely adequate. It does not describe the return format or any nuances of the list operation, but for a straightforward list tool, this may be sufficient. It could benefit from mentioning pagination limits or the absence of filtering, but the annotations and schema cover the basic safety and parameter aspects.
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 provides full documentation for both parameters (page and per_page) with descriptions, so the schema covers parameter semantics. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details about the parameters, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'macros', which is distinct from sibling tools like list_triggers and list_tickets. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable, though it does not add any scope or filtering details that would further differentiate it from similar list operations.
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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or mention that this lists all macros without filtering. Sibling tools such as list_triggers are similar but the description offers no differentiation or use-case direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.