Listet die Anrufe dieses Tenants, neueste zuerst. Identisch zu GET /api/v1/calls.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_calls"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-basierte Seitenzahl (Standard: 1). | |
| limit | No | Einträge pro Seite (Standard: 50, maximal 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sort order (newest first) and that it is equivalent to a REST read, implying a safe read-only operation. It says nothing about tenant scoping requirements, permissions, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema covers.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering. No filler, though the REST-endpoint analogy is marginally redundant for an agent that only sees tool definitions.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and ordering adequately. It omits any mention of result shape or tenant-permission prerequisites, leaving minor gaps.
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 page and limit (including defaults and max) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Listet die Anrufe dieses Tenants') plus an ordering guarantee ('neueste zuerst'). The resource is clearly distinct from list_appointments and list_outcomes, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are mentioned. The analogy to GET /api/v1/calls implies a standard list read but does not help an agent choose between this tool and its siblings.
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.