Fetches all node plugin shared lists, providing a complete view of shared plugin configurations for admin review.
List all node plugin shared lists
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "shared_lists_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. 'List all' implies a read operation but this is not made explicit, and the response format is entirely undisclosed.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose immediately and is appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks clarity on the nature of 'node plugin shared lists' and what the response will contain. It does not specify any filtering, ordering, or return format, leaving gaps that could affect correct 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already conveys. The description correctly does not add unnecessary parameter information. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given no parameters exist.
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 clear verb 'List' with a specific resource 'all node plugin shared lists'. It clearly indicates a listing operation and distinguishes from get/create/update/delete siblings by the plural 'list' scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with shared_lists_get, leaving a slight gap in differentiation.
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 shared_lists_get or other alternatives. It only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or inappropriate. For a simple list tool, an agent might infer usage, but no explicit exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.