Find LimFavorBusiness 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the single-vs-list behavior, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or other operational details beyond what the schema provides.
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 no wasted words, clearly stating the tool's purpose and the two usage modes.
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 query tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling modes. It could be more complete by clarifying return shape or pagination, but the schema already carries most operational detail.
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 high at 83%, with id, skip, sort, limit, and query already documented in the schema. The description reinforces id/query usage but adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond 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 states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('LimFavorBusiness records'), and distinguishes two modes: single-record lookup by id and filtered-list query. It does not name or differentiate from sibling query tools, but the resource specificity is sufficient for an agent to identify the tool.
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 explicitly explains the two calling modes: pass 'id' for one record, or 'query' for a filtered list. This gives clear context for parameter selection, though it does not mention when to prefer other sibling query tools or any exclusions.
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.