vomehome_list_guest_linksList all guest links for a VomeHome instance, including revoked ones, to identify and manage them without exposing login URLs.
List guest links created for this instance, including already-revoked ones (with revoked_at set). Never returns the login URL again — only enough to identify and manage each link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance_id | Yes | VomeHome instance id (UUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it includes revoked links (with revoked_at set) and explicitly states the login URL is never returned again. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious return-content disclosure that helps an agent reason about output, though pagination/ordering are unmentioned.
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 tight sentences with the scoping constraint front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: what is listed, what is included, and what is deliberately withheld.
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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by explaining links are returned with identity/management info but never the login URL, plus the revoked_at marker. This is nearly complete for a simple single-param read tool, missing only finer output details like ordering or fields.
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 100% and there is only one required parameter (instance_id), which the schema already documents. The description's 'for this instance' reiterates the schema without adding format or constraint detail, so 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (guest links) scoped explicitly to 'this instance', and the mention of revoked links distinguishes it from the create/revoke siblings. An agent can tell it is a read-only enumeration tool without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by 'only enough to identify and manage each link', which hints at a management/inspection context, and the revoked-inclusion note clarifies when this is the right listing tool. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states a when-not condition, so it stops short of real routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.