swebsy_list_pagesLists a project's pages with IDs, names, filenames, section counts, and the selected page so you can choose the right page before selecting or linking instead of guessing.
List the project's pages (id, name, fileName, section count, which one is selected). Call this instead of guessing a page name for select_page or link_page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result set, including the 'which one is selected' state, which is not derivable from the annotations or the empty input schema.
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 sentences, both front-loaded and earning their place: the first states the resource and payload, the second routes the agent away from a guess-based shortcut. No filler.
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?
With no params and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by naming the key fields. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for zero-param tools is 4. The description spends its words on the result set instead, which is the right allocation.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (the project's pages), and it enumerates the returned fields (id, name, fileName, section count, selection state), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_sites/list_templates/list_assets.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Call this instead of guessing a page name for select_page or link_page.' It names the downstream tools that consume the result and the failure mode (guessing names) it prevents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.