list_sitesRetrieve a paginated list of sites saved to your LightSpot account, including each site's latest score. Use limit and offset to page through accounts with many sites.
Liste paginée des sites enregistrés sur votre compte LightSpot (avec leur dernier score).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Taille de page (défaut 50). | |
| offset | No | Décalage de pagination. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination and that each entry carries a latest score, and 'liste' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about ordering, total-count behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero structured behavioral metadata.
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 sentence with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the parenthetical detail about the latest score is placed where it does not interrupt the main claim.
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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the resource is and one notable payload property. It could still note ordering or result volume, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.
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 and offset are already documented in the schema (including the default of 50). The description adds only the word 'paginée', which restates the schema rather than adding semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Liste paginée des sites') and adds scope ('enregistrés sur votre compte LightSpot') plus an extra payload detail ('avec leur dernier score'). The plural 'sites' naturally contrasts with the sibling 'get_site', but the description never names the alternative, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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: it is a listing tool, so an agent can infer it is for browsing all sites rather than fetching one. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_site or list_site_audits, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.