list_clientsList the subscriber’s clients with their billing profile, optionally filtered by a name/notes search. Answers "who are my clients?"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional name or notes search. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "billingEmail": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "billingFrequency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "billingTermsDays": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "city": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "notes": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "phone": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "state": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "city",
+ "state",
+ "phone",
+ "billingEmail",
+ "billingFrequency",
+ "billingTermsDays",
+ "notes"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds context about including billing profiles and optional filtering, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like response format or pagination. With annotations present, the description adds moderate value.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. The key action is front-loaded, and the purpose is immediately clear. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single optional parameter, read-only nature, output schema available), the description provides all necessary context. It explains what the tool returns (clients with billing profiles) and when to use it, without needing to detail output since an output schema exists.
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 100% coverage with a single 'query' parameter described as 'Optional name or notes search.' The description adds meaning by clarifying that the search applies to both name and notes, going beyond the schema description. This provides helpful context for using the optional filter.
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 clearly states the function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscriber’s clients with their billing profile'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_client_summary' by implying a list operation. The added question 'Answers who are my clients?' reinforces the purpose.
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 provides clear context by answering a specific user query ('who are my clients?'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives, such as 'get_client_summary' for a single client. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.
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.