list_testimonialsList published customer testimonials about Flamel, with the author name, title, and company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return (1-50). Defaults to 10. | |
| featured | No | Return only featured testimonials. Defaults to false. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testimonials | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "testimonials": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "author": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "company": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "quote": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "quote"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "testimonials"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful context by specifying that only published testimonials are returned and what fields each item contains, which is useful beyond the schema.
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, well-structured sentence that covers the resource, scope, and return content without redundancy. No wasted words and the key terms are front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with two fully documented parameters, an existing output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides enough context. The published-testimonials scope fills the main behavioral gap and the tool works well within the sibling list.
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 clear descriptions for the limit (range and default) and the featured boolean. The description contributes no additional param guidance, but the schema fully documents both parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('published customer testimonials about Flamel') and enumerates the included fields (author name, title, company). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools for blog posts, case studies, and FAQs.
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 intended use case is implied by naming the resource and its scope, e.g., to fetch testimonials as opposed to blog posts or case studies. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_flamel_content, nor provide any exclusion criteria.
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.