list_info_pagesRetrieve an owners' association's information pages, including house rules, contacts, and practical details, to quickly find essential building guidance.
List the association's information pages (house rules, contacts, practical info...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral context is the nature of the content (house rules, contacts, practical info), which is mild but useful; it says nothing about ordering, pagination or volume.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its contents are stated immediately and every clause earns its place.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and zero parameters means no input documentation is required. The one missing element is the relationship to the get_info_page sibling, which is the only thing an agent still has to guess.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical list of page types does help the agent understand what entities the result set contains, which is a slight bonus.
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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (the association's information pages) and even parenthetically enumerates what those pages contain (house rules, contacts, practical info). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_info_page, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' – there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the singular get_info_page, and no note that the returned pages are the input to get_info_page. For a zero-parameter enumeration tool this is minimally adequate, but the sibling relationship is left for the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.