List all accessible sites.
List all accessible sites.
Args: settings: Application settings limit: Maximum number of sites to return offset: Number of sites to skip
Returns: List of site dictionaries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| controller | No | Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / controllerAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Controller to run against (see list_controllers). Defaults to the controller chosen with select_controller, then the server default."
+}v0.2.0Does 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 implies access scoping with "accessible" but says nothing about pagination defaults, how the optional controller is resolved, or whether results are filtered — for a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 first sentence is crisp and front-loaded, but the docstring-style Args/Returns block pads the description with a phantom parameter and a "Returns: List of site dictionaries" line that duplicates the existing output schema.
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 tool with an output schema and one self-documenting parameter, the description still leaves key questions open: how to choose among the many site-listing siblings, what "accessible" filters on, and what pagination behavior to expect. The phantom settings argument further undermines completeness.
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 coverage is only 33% (just controller), and the description does add brief meaning for limit and offset that the schema itself lacks, which is genuine value. It also documents a "settings: Application settings" argument that does not exist in the schema, which introduces confusion rather than clarity.
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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("List all accessible sites") with a scope qualifier ("accessible"). However, it offers no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as list_integration_sites, list_all_sites_aggregated, or search_across_sites, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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 guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to any alternative sibling. Given the dense cluster of list/get site tools, this is a real gap rather than an omission the agent can infer around.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.