Retrieve items from a Webflow CMS collection with pagination controls for limit and offset. Use it to browse collection entries by providing an API token and collection ID.
List items in a Webflow CMS collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return (max 100, default 25) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| access_token | Yes | Webflow API token | |
| collection_id | Yes | Webflow collection id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the bare purpose: no note on pagination behavior, collection ordering, or what happens with large collections, which is the kind of context annotations cannot supply.
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 short sentence with zero filler and a front-loaded verb. Efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal; no output schema exists, yet the description does not sketch the returned shape or pagination contract. Just enough to call correctly, nothing more.
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%, with limit (max 100, default 25), offset, access_token and collection_id all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (list) and resource (items in a Webflow CMS collection), and the scoping by collection is clear enough to distinguish it from webflow_list_collections and webflow_list_sites. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands just below the top band.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus webflow_list_collections, webflow_get_site, or any paginated fetch alternative, and no prerequisites noted. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.