dp_commercial_list_integrationsList integrations included in commercial V1. Use trialChannels, not the connector id, as channels for dp_commercial_start_live_trial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| links | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "nextAction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "data",
+ "error",
+ "nextAction",
+ "links",
+ "evidence",
+ "version"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds field-level behavioral context by telling the agent which output field (trialChannels) to pass downstream and which to avoid (connector id), going beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second delivers a specific, non-obvious usage instruction. No filler or redundancy.
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 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining key context: the scope (commercial V1) and the downstream field mapping to dp_commercial_start_live_trial. An agent has everything needed to call and use this tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics by vacuous completeness (100% coverage). The description needs no parameter explanation; baseline 4 applies.
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: 'List integrations included in commercial V1.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_offers, list_use_cases) by the noun 'integrations' and scopes to a particular plan version.
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?
Provides actionable context: the tool lists commercial V1 integrations, and explicitly instructs that trialChannels (not connector id) should be used as channels for dp_commercial_start_live_trial. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but the cross-tool guidance is concrete and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.