slack_list_starsLists items you have starred in Slack, returning paginated results with cursor support so you can review saved channels, messages, and files.
List starred items for the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| count | No | Results per page, 1-100 (default: 100) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from previous response |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / count / descriptionAdded value: +"Results per page, 1-100 (default: 100)"Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Pagination cursor from previous response"Input schema / properties / page / descriptionAdded value: +"Page number (default: 1)"v0.2.0Does 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 are scoped to the authenticated user's own stars, which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result contents beyond that.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient but so terse that it omits any operational context, sitting just below the ideal for a list 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?
With an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the mechanics are handled elsewhere. Still, the description leaves 'starred items' underspecified (what resource type, what ordering) for a tool an agent may choose among 16 siblings.
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?
All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including defaults and the 1-100 bound for count. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('starred items') with the scope 'for the authenticated user'. No sibling tool covers stars, so no differentiation is required, but the description does not clarify what kind of items (messages, files, channels) come back.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note that pagination params control traversal. The only selection signal is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.