list_decksLists all decks with their title, company, slide count, and last change date, so you can find and review the decks in your InstaDeck workspace.
Lists decks with title, company, number of slides and last change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-field set (title, company, slide count, last change), which is genuinely useful with no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.
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 tight sentence with the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It earns its place, though it is arguably too short to route the agent against siblings.
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 zero-param list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is almost sufficient, but with no output schema it should disclose pagination or ordering behavior for a potentially large deck collection.
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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify.
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 (Lists) and resource (decks) and even names the fields returned, so intent is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_deck or list_assets, which is the only gap.
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?
There is no guidance on when to pick this over get_deck (single deck) or delete_deck, nor any mention of ordering, filters, or limits. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Lists'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.