pipeline-next-actionsLists persisted pipeline attention items for the authenticated business without changing, dismissing, or executing them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of actions to return. | |
| priority | No | Optional priority filter. | |
| due_before | No | Only actions due on or before this local date. | |
| action_type | No | Optional exact action type. | |
| action_state | No | Pipeline state; defaults to open. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating the tool does not change, dismiss, or execute items. It adds the contextual detail that results are scoped to the authenticated business and are persisted attention items, but it does not reveal other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or authorization requirements.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a useful non-mutation qualifier. Every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and fully documented input fields, the description is largely adequate. The main gap is not explaining how this tool relates to pipeline-recommendations or when a search/preview sibling would be more appropriate.
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 the input schema fully documents all five optional parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 where the schema carries the burden.
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 names a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('persisted pipeline attention items'), and explicitly communicates a non-mutating scope ('without changing, dismissing, or executing them'). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like pipeline-recommendations.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pipeline-recommendations or the many preview/search siblings. There is no stated condition, exclusion, or alternative tool reference, so an agent must infer usage purely from the name and description.
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.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.