list_servicesEvery service ASC sells (live and AI answering, virtual receptionist, appointment scheduling, live chat, SMS, call center and more), each with a description, page URL and markdown URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Only services whose name or description contains this text, e.g. "chat" or "medical". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / searchAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only services whose name or description contains this text, e.g. \"chat\" or \"medical\".",
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful value by disclosing the return payload ('each with a description, page URL and markdown URL'), which is real context beyond the annotations. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or size limits.
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 that leads with the resource and then the return shape. The parenthetical service enumeration is slightly long but earns its place by making the catalog's scope concrete.
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 usefully fills the gap by naming the three returned fields (description, page URL, markdown URL). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only ordering and result-size behavior remain unspecified.
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% and the single optional 'search' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'every service' implicitly signals the no-filter default but adds no syntax or matching semantics 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 concrete resource ('every service ASC sells') and enumerates representative examples (AI answering, virtual receptionist, scheduling, chat, SMS, call center), so an agent immediately knows this is a catalog listing. It is clear but never mentions the sibling tools (search_site, read_page), so it does not actively differentiate itself from them.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. It never says to use this for discovery versus search_site for keyword lookup, nor does it mention the optional 'search' filter as a way to narrow results. Usage must be inferred from 'every service ... sells'.
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.