list_showcasesRetrieve and sort your Vimeo showcases, called albums, to manage curated video playlists with pagination and ordering by date, title, video count, or duration.
List your showcases, which the API calls albums. Each is a curated playlist with its own page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | date | |
| per_page | No | ||
| direction | No | desc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.1Does 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 fully covered. The description adds domain context ('curated playlist with its own page') but says nothing about pagination, result count, or ordering behavior, which for a paged list tool is the useful missing piece.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the resource semantics, though more could be said about pagination in the same budget.
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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description explains what showcases are but omits all parameter/pagination behavior and any guidance on result volume. It is adequate to identify the tool but incomplete for invoking it well.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and compensates with nothing. page, per_page, sort and direction are never mentioned, so an agent gets no meaning about sorting keys or pagination semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 (list) and resource (showcases), and usefully maps the product term to the API term ('which the API calls albums'). This distinguishes it from single-item siblings like get_showcase, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance: it doesn't say to use this for browsing a collection versus get_showcase for a single album, nor when to page/sort. The existence of get_showcase, create_showcase, etc. makes routing guidance valuable and it is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.