Retrieve all Things 3 areas with their IDs and names, providing a clear overview to support task organization and planning.
List all Things 3 areas (id + name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_areasArguments"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_areasOutput"Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultAdded value: +truev0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that this is a list/read operation and specifies output contents, but it omits explicit reassurance about being read-only and does not mention response behavior like ordering, limits, or potential errors. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.
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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes meaning: 'List', 'all', 'Things 3 areas', and the output format. There is zero redundancy or filler.
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 has no parameters and an output schema, the description is contextually complete. It states the single behavior, scope, and expected return contents. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input semantics and it productively indicates what the output includes, id and name, which compensates for any lack of parameter detail.
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 ('List') and names the exact resource ('all Things 3 areas'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_projects, list_tags, and list_todos. Adding the output fields (id + name) further removes 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?
The description clearly states that this tool retrieves all areas, so an agent can infer it is the right choice when area-level data is needed. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the resource distinction is obvious among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.