gitbook_list_collectionsList all collections in an organization. GitBook REST: GET /orgs/{organizationId}/collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. | |
| limit | No | Results per page. | |
| nested | No | Include nested (sub-)collections in the response. | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by indicating a GET request. It adds the REST endpoint and scope but no additional behavioral details such as pagination defaults or nested collection handling. The annotation lowers the bar, and the description meets it without enriching further.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the REST endpoint reference. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 operation with a fully documented schema and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values (no output schema exists), but the low complexity and clear resource scope make it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 schema has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all four parameters (organizationId, page, limit, nested). The description does not need to repeat parameter details; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'collections' and scope 'in an organization.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_collection' by explicitly saying 'all collections,' making its purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context (listing collections within an organization) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_collection or list_spaces. Usage is implied from the resource name rather than explicitly stated.
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.