view-custom-fieldsList the custom-field definitions available to the authenticated Chatway team. This does not return field values for a particular visitor. Use this before add-custom-data or update-custom-data to reuse existing field names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| custom_fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "custom_fields": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by clarifying the scope of what is returned (definitions, not visitor values), though it does not mention ordering, limits, or caching behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, what it excludes, and when to call it. The workflow hint is front-loaded rather than buried.
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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and the one ambiguity that matters – definitions vs. visitor values – is explicitly closed. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no parameter semantics to add meaning to. Baseline for a no-param tool.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (custom-field definitions) scoped to the authenticated Chatway team. It further distinguishes itself by stating what it is not ('does not return field values for a particular visitor'), which separates it from the value-oriented siblings like get-visitor.
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?
Explicitly instructs the agent to call this before `add-custom-data` or `update-custom-data` to reuse existing field names – a named alternative and a named trigger condition. No inference required to place it in a workflow.
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.