Read field service options and USD starting estimates. Human quoting and scheduling required.
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_services"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extra context the annotations do not: pricing is a USD 'starting estimate' only, and quoting/scheduling is a human-led step, which sets expectations about the return data.
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, zero waste, with the core action and the human-in-the-loop constraint both front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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, the description must characterize the return, and it does: service options plus USD starting estimates. It stops just short of noting whether results are paginated or carry identifiers needed for a subsequent quote.
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?
The schema takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description does not confuse matters by implying any.
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-plus-resource: 'Read field service options and USD starting estimates.' It is clearly a read/list catalog tool, distinguishable in kind from write siblings like accept_quote or create_payment_checkout, though it never names an alternative 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?
'Human quoting and scheduling required' implies this tool only surfaces options and cannot complete a booking, which is useful context. However, it does not say when to call this versus get_capabilities or list_payment_methods, nor any prerequisites for a follow-up quote.
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.