Retrieve regular collections with counts; filter by name and follow next_offset for pagination.
List regular collections and counts; filter by name. Follow next_offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| offset | Yes | ||
| next_offset | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior ('Follow next_offset') that is not in the annotations or schema, but says nothing about what the counts contain or rate-limit behavior.
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 no filler and the operation is front-loaded. The compressed phrasing ('and counts') is slightly elliptical but stays within an acceptable length.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, 'regular' is unexplained, the name-filter parameter is not tied to the query field, and pagination semantics are reduced to two words – enough to be called but with clear gaps.
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, but it only gestures at 'filter by name' and 'next_offset' without mapping either to the actual parameter names (query, offset) or clarifying limit/default/max. It is marginally better than nothing, which is the baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List regular collections') and adds scope ('and counts'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_collection. However, 'regular' is undefined jargon and it does not distinguish itself from list_platforms or the paginated siblings; a small gap keeps it from a 5.
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 vs alternatives guidance at all; the agent must guess whether get_collection or list_collections is appropriate. 'filter by name' is the only conditional, and it is not framed as such.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.