Retrieve all demographic survey questions across all sets, including name, set ID, required status, answer type, and sort order. Read-only.
List all demographic survey questions across all sets. Read-only.
Each question has name (the prompt), demographic_question_set_id, required, answer_type and sort_order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful for a mutation-adjacent catalog, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether unanswered/inactive questions are included.
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?
Short and front-loaded: the purpose leads, the read-only note follows, and the field list is compact. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant given the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.
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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and read-only nature adequately. Enumerating returned fields is redundant with the output schema but not harmful.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to misdescribe.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List all demographic survey questions') plus a scope qualifier ('across all sets') that implicitly contrasts with the scoped sibling list_questions_for_question_set. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full 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?
'Across all sets' hints at when to prefer this over a set-scoped listing, but the description never states when to use this versus list_question_sets or list_questions_for_question_set. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.