Retrieve a paginated list of Pokémon to browse or select combatants for AI battles. Set limit and offset to page through results, returning up to 100 entries.
Get a list of Pokemon with optional pagination
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of Pokemon to return (max 100, default 20) | |
| offset | No | Number of Pokemon to skip (default 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, but it does not disclose return ordering, what each list entry contains, whether the list is exhaustive, or how pagination termination behaves — meaningful gaps for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately terse, though it borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely efficient.
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 two-parameter read tool this is minimally viable, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves unclear what the returned list actually contains and when the agent has reached the end.
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 100%, with both limit and offset fully documented (defaults, max 100, min 0). The description only restates 'optional pagination' and adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of Pokemon'), which clearly separates it from singular-data siblings like get_pokemon_data. However, it never names or differentiates against search_pokemon or get_pokemon_data, so the agent must infer the boundary on its own.
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?
It says 'optional pagination' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over search_pokemon, and no alternatives or prerequisites. The agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.