gitbook_list_change_requestsList change requests for a space. GitBook REST: GET /spaces/{spaceId}/change-requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Results per page. | |
| status | No | Filter by change-request status, e.g. 'open', 'merged', 'draft'. | |
| spaceId | Yes | The space id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the REST endpoint, which is marginally useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or return format. No contradiction exists, yet the description carries minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a direct REST reference, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation. It includes the space-scoping context and the HTTP endpoint, covering essential details. Minor omissions like pagination defaults are already in the schema, so no significant gap exists.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all parameters (page, limit, status, spaceId) already provided in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, such as how status filtering behaves or default pagination, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('change requests for a space'), with a specific endpoint reference. It differentiates from sibling tools like create/update change requests by focusing on retrieval.
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 implies usage for listing change requests in a space but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Context from siblings (create/update) suggests this is for read-only listing, but the description itself does not specify exclusions or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., get vs list vs search, change-request vs page vs space), so there is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a uniform gitbook_ prefix (e.g., gitbook_list_spaces, gitbook_get_page, gitbook_create_change_request). The naming is predictable and systematic.
14 tools is slightly high but still reasonable for a documentation platform API covering resources like spaces, pages, change requests, collections, organizations, and search. Each tool has a clear purpose, though the set feels a bit broad with several read-only operations.
The set is heavily read-focused and lacks essential write operations for pages and spaces (create, update, delete), which are core to GitBook's purpose. It does cover change-request lifecycle partially (create, list, update) but omits merge/delete and page editing, leaving noticeable gaps.