Retrieve RomM library platforms with ROM counts, optional name filtering, and next_offset pagination.
List library platforms and ROM counts; optional name filter. 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds paging behavior ("Follow next_offset"), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about result size, rate limits, or what a page contains.
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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the core capability comes first and the operational note second. The only cost is that "Follow next_offset" is cryptic against an input parameter actually named offset.
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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. Still, with 0% schema description coverage the agent is left guessing about limit semantics and the offset/next_offset relationship for a paginated list tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the query filter and points at offset-based paging, but never clarifies limit or the offset parameter's range/default, and it names "next_offset" (an output field) rather than the input parameter "offset".
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 uses a specific verb+resource ("List library platforms") and adds the distinguishing payload ("ROM counts"), which separates it from search_roms and list_collections. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or stating scope boundaries, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
"optional name filter" implies when to pass a query and "Follow next_offset" implies iterative paging, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_roms (the obvious alternative for filtered lookups), and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.