datalens_collections_list_by_idsFetches DataLens collections by their IDs, returning only those the caller can access.
The collections with these ids; an id the caller cannot see is left out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection_ids | Yes | Collection ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: ids the caller cannot see are silently omitted rather than causing an error. However, it does not describe return format, ordering, or handling of duplicate ids, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core operation and appends the key edge-case behavior. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 batch lookup with rich annotations and a fully described single parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and the permission-filtering behavior. It does not explain return ordering or pagination, but with no output schema and a low-complexity surface, those omissions are minor.
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% — the single parameter is fully documented as 'Collection ids.' The description references 'these ids' but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 clearly states that the tool returns the collections matching the given ids, and adds the key behavior that inaccessible ids are omitted. It distinguishes itself from simple single-collection getters by implying batch lookup, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like datalens_collections_get or datalens_workbooks_list_by_ids.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as datalens_collections_get or datalens_collections_content_list, nor does it state any prerequisites or selection criteria. The only contextual clue is the input parameter name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.