list_servicesWhat this company will and will not do in the physical world, the refused categories, example prices, the payment rules and the key contract terms. Identical to https://handsforagents.com/services.json. No authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not responsible for establishing safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact upstream source URL and the explicit 'No authentication' requirement. It also clarifies that the data represents stated company policy, not just a generic service list.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core content categories, then adds the exact data source URL and authentication requirement. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy with the schema.
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 zero-parameter, read-only reference tool, this is nearly complete: it states content, source, and authentication. It does not describe the response format or whether the data is live, but the '.json' URL strongly implies a JSON response, and the annotation set covers side effects and idempotency.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter explanations because none are needed. The 'No authentication' note also confirms no hidden inputs are required.
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 title clearly names the resource ('services, prices and terms') and the description expands on the exact content: company scope, refused categories, example prices, payment rules, and contract terms. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools 'get_status' and 'request_quote', though it does not explicitly use a performing verb like 'returns a list of'.
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 implies a clear use case: retrieve company service policies and pricing information. It provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' statement, but the content detail makes it evident that this is the reference tool for services/terms, while the siblings are status and quote actions. The sibling names help differentiate without further explanation.
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.