Retrieve available menus with IDs and names, returning up to 20 at a time; if results are truncated, use search to find specific menus.
List menus. Returns up to 20 with {items, total, truncated}; each item has id, name. If truncated, prefer search_menus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: the 20-item cap and the truncation fallback, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.
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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action, then the limit, then the fallback. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape ({items, total, truncated}, items carrying id and name) plus the truncation escape hatch. Complete for a simple zero-param list tool; only minor gaps such as ordering or a hard default page size.
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 nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing spurious about inputs.
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 (menus), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_menus by naming it as the alternative. An agent can pick between list_menus and search_menus without opening either schema.
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?
Gives one explicit routing condition: 'If truncated, prefer search_menus.' That is clear context for when to switch tools, but it doesn't say when to use list_menus at all versus other siblings (e.g. get_menu), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.