Find where a widget is used on portal pages by providing its sys_id. Returns instance locations to help audit or manage widget placements.
List instances of a specific widget placed on portal pages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records to return (default 25) | |
| widget_sys_id | Yes | Widget sys_id to find instances of |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that it is specifically about widget instances on portal pages, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format details, or any filtering nuances beyond what the schema offers. No contradiction with annotations.
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 immediately communicates the tool's purpose with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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, and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the returned instances will contain (e.g., page names, sys_ids, properties). The agent can infer it returns a list of widget instance records, but the lack of return-structure detail makes it only adequate.
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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the parameter names and schema descriptions are self-explanatory. 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 a clear resource ('instances of a specific widget placed on portal pages'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_portal_widgets (which lists widget definitions) and get_portal_widget (which gets a single widget), specifying that this tool finds widget placements across portal 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?
The description implies usage when you need to find where a widget is placed on portal pages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is a clear but minimal indication of purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.