kb_listList knowledge base page titles, optionally limited to a folder, to show which documentation is available.
List knowledge base pages with their titles, optionally only those under one folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | No | Folder under content/ to list, for example policies. Defaults to everything. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results contain titles and that listing can be scoped to a folder, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or whether subfolders are included. This is acceptable but not rich.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the optional behavior placed at the end. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description sufficiently states what is returned (titles) and the optional folder scope. The schema covers the folder default. It could add details about pagination or recursive folder behavior, but nothing critical is missing.
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 folder parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description's mention of listing 'under one folder' adds no meaning beyond the schema's definition. 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 names a specific verb and resource: it lists knowledge base pages and returns their titles. It also adds the folder-scoping option, which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.
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 usage context is implied: use this tool to enumerate knowledge base pages, optionally within a single folder. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose kb_list over kb_search or kb_read, nor does it note exclusion criteria such as searching vs browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.