List multi-camera productions from your WAVE account with pagination and status filters to find specific productions.
List multi-camera productions in your WAVE account (GET /v1/productions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of productions to return (default 25) | |
| offset | No | Number of productions to skip for pagination (default 0) | |
| status | No | Filter by production status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of productions to return (1-100, default 25)"New value: +"Maximum number of productions to return (default 25)"Input schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[
- "draft",
- "live",
- "ended",
- "all"
-]New value: +[
+ "setup",
+ "rehearsal",
+ "live",
+ "paused",
+ "ended"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only reveals that this is a GET (read) operation scoped to the account. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, authentication needs, or what happens with empty results.
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 delivers the verb, resource, and scope with zero filler. The API endpoint inclusion is a useful bonus that does not bloat the text.
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 tool with fully documented optional parameters, the definition is functional, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without expectations about the response shape or how this tool fits into the production lifecycle. Acceptable yet incomplete.
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% — all three parameters (limit, offset, status) are already documented with types, ranges, defaults, and the status enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 ('List'), a specific resource ('multi-camera productions'), and a scope ('in your WAVE account'), plus the API endpoint. The resource type clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wave_list_streams and wave_create_production.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wave_list_streams or wave_create_production. The tool name implies listing productions, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.