List the companies the signed-in user can access, newest first, each with only its id and name. It returns at most 25 and has no paging or search, so a user with more companies sees only the 25 most recently created. Call it first to find the company ID that other tools take as id or companyId, and use get-company for a company's next fiscal year end.
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: a hard cap of 25 results, no paging and no search, and the concrete consequence that a user with more companies silently sees only the 25 most recently created. That truncation warning is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or an empty schema.
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, front-loaded with what is returned and in what order, then the routing guidance. Every clause carries information: limit, absence of paging/search, truncation consequence, and the ID-discovery purpose.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape ('only its id and name') and the ordering. Combined with the truncation warning and the cross-tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate. The description does not waste words inventing parameter detail, which is appropriate here.
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 the companies the signed-in user can access'), plus scope (accessible to signed-in user), ordering (newest first), and returned fields (id and name only). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get-company and from the other list-* tools.
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?
Explicitly says to 'Call it first to find the company ID that other tools take as id or companyId', giving a concrete ordering prerequisite relative to siblings. It also names the alternative for a different need: 'use get-company for a company's next fiscal year end.'
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.
