List soft-deleted entities currently in the recycle bin, optionally filtered by entity type and paged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number (default 1). | |
| page_size | No | Items per page (default 20). | |
| entity_type | No | Filter by type: Customer, Project, Task, or SubTask. Omit for all types. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or returns sensitive data. The term 'soft-deleted' is not elaborated, and the return format is unspecified.
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 a single 16-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient but slightly under-informative given the lack of annotations and output schema.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent uninformed about the return format, pagination details, and whether the operation is safe. More context on what 'soft-deleted' means and what fields are returned is needed.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the optional filter and pagination but adds no new meaning beyond what is in the schema.
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 the specific verb 'list' and resource 'recycle bin', clearly indicating what the tool does. It adds optional filtering by entity type and paging, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list active entities (e.g., list_customers, list_projects).
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 viewing soft-deleted entities before restoration or permanent deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.
Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.
With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.