Fetch a paginated list of call queues from Yeastar P-Series PBX to view queue configurations and monitor availability.
List call queues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Defaults to 1. | |
| page_size | No | Items per page. Defaults to the PBX's own default page size. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List call queues' and omits details about pagination behavior, response shape, or explicit read-only semantics, though 'list' weakly implies a read operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though slightly terse in that it leaves out contextual details that could be helpful.
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?
The tool is simple with two optional parameters, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the return format, pagination details, or how this list relates to the queue-specific get tools.
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%, with page and page_size already clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'call queues', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like yeastar_get_queue, which fetches a single queue, and from list tools for other resources.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yeastar_get_queue, yeastar_list_ring_groups, or yeastar_list_trunks. There is no mention of when to use a list versus a get operation, and no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.