list_instant_urlsRead a paginated list of Bannerbear Instant URLs for a specific private workspace account. Use page and account parameters to filter results.
GET /v5/instant_urls. Current Bannerbear V5 operation; provider scopes, locks and credits apply. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| account | No | Exact private workspace profile label; no fallback to another profile key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply,' which signals permission requirements and a credit cost, but leaves these terms unexplained and says nothing about pagination behavior for a list endpoint.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the endpoint, with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the informational gaps noted elsewhere.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description should convey at least the shape of the result and the pagination model implied by the 'page' parameter. Instead it offers generic boilerplate about scopes, locks and credits, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or how to page through it.
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 only 50% — 'account' is documented in the schema while 'page' has no description at all. The tool description adds no information about either parameter, so the undocumented pagination parameter remains unexplained in both places, below the baseline 3 that full schema coverage would warrant.
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 the HTTP endpoint GET /v5/instant_urls, which implies retrieval of instant URLs, and the name confirms the resource. However, it never says explicitly that it returns a collection of instant URLs, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_instant_url (single item) beyond the endpoint string. Purpose is inferable but not stated in plain language.
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 use this tool versus get_instant_url or the other instant-url siblings. 'Read operation' is the only hint about usage context, and it is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.