Retrieves a paginated list of Pokémon from PokeAPI using limit and offset parameters, enabling browsing of Pokémon data page by page.
List Pokemon with pagination from PokeAPI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page (max 100, default 20) | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that results are paginated, and says nothing about total counts, default page size behavior, or what happens at the end of the list.
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 phrase 'from PokeAPI' is slightly redundant but not harmful.
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 simple two-parameter read-only list endpoint with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks any note on return shape (name/url entries) or practical paging limits, which an agent would need for multi-page traversal.
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 schema documents limit (max 100, default 20) and offset, so the description carries no extra burden. Its mention of pagination adds nothing beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List Pokemon') plus the source API, which is enough to distinguish it from poke_get_pokemon by name alone. It stops short of explicitly framing the list-vs-detail split.
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 indication of when to use this versus poke_get_pokemon, poke_get_type, or other PokeAPI siblings, and no guidance on paging strategy. The agent must infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.