datalens_workbooks_list_by_idsList DataLens workbooks by their IDs. Returns only those the caller can access, omitting inaccessible IDs.
The workbooks with these ids; an id the caller cannot see is left out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workbook_ids | Yes | Workbook 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 valuable non-obvious behavior: ids the caller cannot see are silently omitted, which is an authorization-visibility trait not captured by the annotations. It still does not describe return format or error handling for invalid ids.
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, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It efficiently states the primary output and the access-filtering rule, though the noun-phrase style is slightly telegraphic rather than a fully structured sentence.
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 list-by-ids tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and an important visibility edge case. It lacks usage routing and return-structure details, but those gaps are minor relative to the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.
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%, and the single workbook_ids array parameter is documented in the schema as 'Workbook ids.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as ordering, limits, or id format, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (workbooks) and the keying mechanism (these ids), so an agent understands it retrieves multiple workbooks by id. It does not explicitly name a verb or distinguish itself from siblings like datalens_workbooks_list or datalens_workbooks_get, but the scope is clear enough given the title.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as datalens_workbooks_list, datalens_workbooks_get, or datalens_collections_list_by_ids. The only provided behavior is an output filtering rule, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.