get_listFetch metadata for an MDBList list—including name, owner, item count, and likes—using an ID, username and list slug, official slug, share token, or external ID.
Get metadata (name, owner, item count, likes) of a list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | Yes | The list: {id}, {username, listname}, {official}, {share_token} or {external_id} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-field context (name, owner, item count, likes), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for invalid identifiers or whether unlisted shares behave differently.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and immediately followed by the payload. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials and names the returned fields, compensating for the absent output schema. The only gap is that it doesn't mention the multiple lookup forms the agent is expected to pick among.
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% and the union of five identifier forms ({id}, {username,listname}, {official}, {share_token}, {external_id}) is documented entirely in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing beyond 'of a list' — the parameter forms are invisible in prose.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('list') with an explicit enumeration of the metadata returned (name, owner, item count, likes), which implicitly separates it from get_list_items and get_user_lists. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_list_items, get_user_lists, browse_lists, or search_lists. An agent must infer from the sibling names alone that this fetches a single list's header rather than its contents or a collection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.