list_mcp_integrations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (paginated records, total, has_more). No behavioral traits contradict annotations, and the description provides useful context beyond them.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose and return values, while the second provides alternatives. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the simplicity of a list tool with pagination and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and alternatives. It explains the pagination fields (total, has_more) and distinguishes related tools. It does not mention default pagination or sorting, but these are likely covered by the schema or default behavior.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly explained (page number, page size with max, workspace filter). The tool description does not add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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?

The description explicitly states the verb 'List' and resource 'MCP integrations' with scope 'in the organization'. It also mentions the return values (paginated records, total, has_more) and distinguishes from siblings (get_mcp_integration and list_mcp_servers), making the purpose highly specific.

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?

The description provides clear alternatives: 'use get_mcp_integration for one integration's full config and list_mcp_servers for the servers under an integration', which tells when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool, though the purpose implies it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.