get_pending_annotationsFetch all pending Pinpoint annotations as a markdown task list, including comments, element details, and screenshots, so coding agents can address user feedback.
Return every pending annotation (comment + element details + screenshot) as a markdown task list. Use this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Only annotations whose page URL starts with this |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (markdown task list containing comment, element details, and screenshot), which genuinely helps. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates or consumes pending state, pagination limits, or auth requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and payload, followed by the ordering directive. Nothing is wasted and there is no 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the payload contents, and the recommended call order. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination or whether pending state is consumed, but these are not blocking for correct invocation.
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% for the single `url` parameter, so the schema already explains the prefix-match filter. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Return every pending annotation") and even specifies the payload contents and format (comment + element details + screenshot, as a markdown task list). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings via the "pending" scope, but never names list_annotations or get_annotation, so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
"Use this first" gives an explicit ordering hint, which is useful workflow context. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to use instead (e.g. list_annotations for non-pending items), so the guidance remains implied rather than directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.