Retrieve video projects from a CMS editor using limit and offset pagination. Use it to browse projects for review, management, or publication tracking.
List video projects from the editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are paginated or ordered, or what a returned project contains, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than being verbose.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the read-only nature, pagination behavior, and what a 'video project' is. It provides none of this, leaving an agent with only the title-level claim.
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%, with limit and offset documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 and resource (list video projects), which is clearer than a tautology. However, 'from the editor' is vague and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_video_project or create_video_project.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_video_project for fetching a single project. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.