List local page drafts for the current site with summaries—ID, name, slug, type, section count, commit progress, and updated time—to review draft work.
List local page drafts for the current site (summaries only: id, name, slug, type, section count, commit progress, updated_at).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful value by enumerating the returned fields ('id, name, slug, type, section count, commit progress, updated_at'), which effectively stands in for a missing output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what 'local' drafts mean versus remote state.
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 sentence with the scope ('current site') front-loaded and the return contract packed into one parenthetical. No filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields, which is nearly everything needed to invoke it. The remaining gap is workflow context: how results feed into get_page_draft or commit_page_draft is never stated.
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 is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter talk rather than inventing one.
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 and resource ('List local page drafts') and scopes it to the current site, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. The parenthetical 'summaries only' implicitly separates it from get_page_draft (which returns a full draft), but the sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on inference.
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?
No when-to-use statement and no named alternatives. The draft-workflow siblings (get_page_draft, commit_page_draft, clear_page_draft, add_draft_section) are left for the agent to reason about; nothing says whether this is the entry point for enumerating drafts or a status check after edits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.