List persisted support page recommendations with IDs and review state. Paginate using after_id to read the next page.
List persisted suggestions with IDs and review state. Use after_id to read the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after_id | No | ||
| workspace | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes that results are 'persisted' with 'IDs and review state' and that the list is cursor-paginated, but says nothing about ordering, filtering by workspace, or empty-page behavior. Useful but modest added context.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose ('List persisted suggestions with IDs and review state') front-loaded ahead of the pagination note. Efficient, though the pagination sentence could carry a bit more routing value.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool sitting next to review_recommendations and many other list tools, the omission of workspace semantics and any sibling differentiation leaves it only minimally complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains after_id as the pagination cursor for the next page, but the workspace parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (suggestions) and adds meaningful qualifiers ('persisted', 'with IDs and review state'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling supportpages_review_recommendations or the other list_* tools.
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 only usage instruction is 'Use after_id to read the next page,' which describes pagination mechanics rather than when to choose this tool. There is no mention of when to use this over supportpages_review_recommendations or of any prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.