Fetch labels assigned to a Docmost page using its UUID or slugId, with cursor pagination to browse large label sets.
List labels on a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-100 | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from meta.nextCursor | |
| page_id | Yes | Page UUID or slugId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior or whether the result set is limited to explicitly assigned labels, so it meets but does not exceed what annotations provide.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is exactly as long as needed for a simple list operation.
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 schema documents all parameters and the annotations cover the read-only, non-destructive nature, so the core calling context is present. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the return shape or pagination mechanics beyond the cursor hint in the parameter schema. It is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves several details implicit.
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%, so limit, cursor, and page_id are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline expectation.
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 uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('labels on a page'), so an agent can infer the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from add_page_labels/remove_page_label, though the read verb itself distinguishes it from those write siblings.
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 the natural use case—retrieve labels for a page—but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point to add_page_labels/remove_page_label as the corresponding write operations, leaving the agent to infer selection from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.