Get Virtual Agent topics with category and status details. Use filters for active state, category, or custom queries to identify relevant topic configurations.
List all Virtual Agent topics with category and status details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| query | No | Additional encoded query | |
| active | No | Filter to active topics only (default true) | |
| category | No | Filter by category name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations correctly indicate readOnly and openWorld behavior, the description's phrase 'List all' conflicts with the schema's active filter defaulting to true, meaning only active topics are returned by default. This important behavioral nuance is not disclosed. The description also omits any note about pagination or limits, though the limit parameter exists in the schema.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and key output details. There is no wordiness or redundancy; every phrase earns its place.
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 the tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the active filter's default behavior, which directly undermines the word 'all'. It also offers no usage context or distinction from related tools, making the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke it.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the output containing 'category and status details' but does not enrich the meaning of the four parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It fails to clarify that 'active' defaults to true, which would have added value.
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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('Virtual Agent topics') and mentions the details included ('category and status'). However, the claim of listing 'all' topics is potentially misleading given the schema's default active=true, which would exclude inactive topics unless the parameter is overridden. This slight scope inaccuracy prevents a perfect score.
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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_va_categories or get_virtual_agent_topics. There are no explicit context hints, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.