base_wework_list_topicsRetrieve discussion topics from a Base.vn project by providing its project ID. Use this tool to list and paginate work discussions for project updates.
Lấy danh sách các bài thảo luận (topics/discussions) trong một dự án.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | last_update | |
| per_page | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'get list', implying a read operation, but gives no details on pagination, sort defaults, required authentication, error behavior, or response shape. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4.
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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is far too minimal. It provides no information about how to call the tool correctly, required inputs, or expected behavior. The agent would have no idea about pagination, sorting options, or authentication. Completely inadequate for its complexity.
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 0%, meaning no parameter explanations exist in the schema. The description does not mention any parameter, not even the required project_id, nor does it explain page, sort, per_page, or access_token. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 description clearly states the tool lists discussion topics (topics/discussions) within a project, using a specific verb+resource construction. It distinguishes from siblings like base_wework_get_topic (single topic) and base_wework_list_projects (projects list).
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 tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to use it for listing topics, nor does it contrast with get_topic or other list tools. The context signals show multiple list tools, but the description provides no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.