List UI Builder pages and their route configurations to locate app routes or identify page mappings. Filter by app or limit results for targeted navigation.
List UI Builder pages and their route configurations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | Filter by UX app sys_id | |
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, positioning this as a safe read operation. The description adds a small detail about returning route configurations, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or potential large result sets. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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, focused sentence that starts with the action verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or excess.
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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core function and the nature of returned data (route configurations). It could mention pagination or filtering capabilities, but the schema covers the parameters. Overall, sufficient for this complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (app and limit) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the resource type. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource ('UI Builder pages') plus additional detail about what is included ('route configurations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_portal_pages and list_uib_components by explicitly naming UI Builder pages.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like list_ux_pages and list_uib_components, the description does not clarify the intended use case or exclusions. The purpose is implied only by the name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.