Retrieve a paginated list of Everclear intents, optionally filtered by status using limit and offset.
Retrieve a list of intents from Everclear
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by intent status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, default ordering, response shape, or error conditions. The word 'Retrieve' implies a read, but nothing more specific is stated.
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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a list tool with pagination and filtering parameters. It does not explain what the returned intents look like, how pagination works, or how to use the status filter, all of which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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 schema already documents limit, offset, and status. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of intents'), and names the source system Everclear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'get_intent_details', so an agent must infer that this returns a collection rather than details for a single intent.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_intent_details' or any other sibling. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.