List AI agents in your Paperclip organization to view their roles and current status. Filter by status or paginate results to manage agent teams.
List all AI agents in the Paperclip organization with their roles and status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| status | No | Filter by agent status | |
| pageSize | No | Number of items per page |
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 the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The phrase 'list all' conflicts with the presence of pagination parameters, potentially misleading agents.
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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words.
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?
The tool is a list operation with pagination params but no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention pagination behavior, response format, or that 'all' may require iterating pages. This is incomplete for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.
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% because all three parameters (page, status, pageSize) have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is 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?
The description states a specific verb (list), resource (AI agents in Paperclip organization), and includes roles and status. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like paperclip_get_agent (single agent) and paperclip_list_issues (different resource).
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?
The description implies usage as the list-all-agents tool, and sibling names clarify alternatives, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this vs. paperclip_get_agent or other list tools. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.