list_clustersRetrieve a project's query clusters with names and IDs, so you can organize tracked queries into groups for AI search performance analysis.
A project's query clusters (the groups its tracked queries are organized in), by name, with their ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| sortOrder | No | asc | |
| organizationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying the return shape (names with ids), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the parenthetical definition earning its place. No filler, though it could have used the freed space for parameter or pagination detail.
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 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and pagination/ordering parameters present, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It partially offsets the missing output schema by naming the returned fields, but leaves the request side almost entirely unexplained.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails to compensate. It mentions only the project scope implicitly and says nothing about limit, offset, sortOrder, or organizationId semantics.
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 the resource precisely (a project's query clusters) and even defines what a cluster is, plus the returned fields (names and ids). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_cluster_breakdown or create_clusters, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' to frame the operation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as get_cluster_breakdown or search_tracked_queries. The agent must 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.