Find LimDatabaseAccess records - pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch one record by id; omit to query many | |
| skip | No | Records to skip before the first result; 0 or more. | |
| sort | No | Sort field; '-' prefix for descending | |
| limit | No | 1-500; defaults to 50. Out-of-range values are clamped. | |
| query | No | MongoDB-style filter, e.g. {"status": "active"} | |
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description carries a lighter burden. It still adds nothing behavioral: no note on pagination interaction between skip/limit, default result volume, or filter limitations. It is consistent with the annotations, not contradictory.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the id-first ordering matches the primary lookup path.
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?
Adequate for a straightforward read tool with 83% schema coverage and no required parameters, but with no output schema the description leaves the agent guessing about the shape and volume of returned records.
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 83% and the schema already documents id, skip, sort, limit, query, and the meaning of each. The description only restates the id-vs-query distinction, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Find) and resource (LimDatabaseAccess records) and cleanly splits the two access modes (single id vs filtered query). It does not differentiate itself from the 40+ sibling query_lim* tools beyond the resource name embedded in the tool name, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It gives mode-selection guidance ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is genuinely useful, but offers no when-not-to-use conditions, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites for the filter syntax.
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.