Retrieve previously created rigging tasks with pagination and sort by creation time using '+created_at' or '-created_at'.
List previously created rigging tasks. sort_by accepts '+created_at' or '-created_at'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort_by | No | ||
| page_num | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about pagination defaults, maximum page size, what happens when page_num is omitted, whether results are capped, or what the response looks like — all critical for a list tool. The only behavioral hint is the accepted sort values.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and wasting no words. The sort_by sentence is arguably redundant with the enum but is at least placement-appropriate rather than verbose.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both the result shape and pagination behavior. It explains neither, and two of three parameters are semantically empty. An agent could call it, but would not know what to expect back or how to iterate pages.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the enum values for sort_by (already visible in the schema) and leaves page_num and page_size completely undefined — no defaults, no ranges, no page-size cap. Two of three parameters are undocumented in both places.
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 previously created rigging tasks"), which is clearly distinguishable from retrieve_rigging_task and the create/stream siblings in the family. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the list-vs-retrieve distinction is unambiguous from the name and description.
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: "List previously created" suggests enumeration rather than fetching a single task, and the presence of retrieve_rigging_task makes the split inferable. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus retrieve_rigging_task, and no mention of whether it returns all tasks or a page.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.