list_support_threadsThe support threads of the account, most recent first: what was asked, and whether the support team has answered. The threads are shared by the members of the account, whatever wrote them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds useful context: the content of each thread (question and answered status) and that threads are shared across members. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior (list support threads, most recent first) is front-loaded, and the shared-members detail is added without unnecessary verbosity.
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 list tool with no parameters and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what is returned (threads with asked question and answered flag), ordering, and scope. No output schema is needed because the content is described explicitly. Nothing critical 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate, and it correctly omits any parameter discussion.
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 clear verb and resource: lists support threads. It specifies ordering (most recent first) and content (what was asked, whether answered). It's distinct from siblings like get_support_thread (which likely fetches a single thread) and contact_support (which creates).
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?
The description clearly implies use for listing all threads and notes they are shared by account members. It does not explicitly mention when to use get_support_thread for a specific thread, but with zero parameters and a straightforward purpose, the usage is self-evident.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions go out of their way to separate near-neighbor concepts like surfaces vs corroborations and score series vs raw responses. A few related pairs (get_results/get_responses, get_credits/get_usage, create_surface/create_corroboration) could still be confused at a glance, so it is not a perfect 5.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern across all 67 tools, with clear families like create_, update_, get_, list_, archive_, restore_, and delete_. Minor quirks such as topup_credits as one word do not break the overall uniformity.
67 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, even for a broad brand-monitoring domain. The surface is bloated with lifecycle variants per entity, and the sheer number makes the server hard to navigate and prompt against.
The server covers full lifecycles for projects, trackers, surfaces, corroborations, quests, logbook entries, keyword discoveries, competitor scans, link targets, sources, support, and billing. Archive/restore and soft-delete paths prevent dead ends, and nearly every obvious workflow has a corresponding tool.