List participants behind a churn category
The drill-down: the participant IDs behind one churn category count for this Provider over the period. Bounded to 500 rows (never paginated; next_cursor null).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Inclusive period end, `YYYY-MM-DD` UTC. | |
| key | Yes | The Provider key. | |
| from | No | Inclusive period start, `YYYY-MM-DD` UTC. | |
| category | Yes | The churn category to expand. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral information beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'Bounded to 500 rows (never paginated; next_cursor null)'. It also clarifies that the output consists of participant IDs, providing context about the return format. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.
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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing drill-down and limitation details. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the drill-down logic, and the row limit/pagination behavior. It states that the result is participant IDs, giving return-value context. The absence of explicit parameter explanations is acceptable because the schema fully covers them, leaving only minor gaps.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including inclusive date ranges, provider key, and category enum. The description references 'over the period' and 'Provider' but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema which already 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 uses a specific verb 'List participants' and clearly identifies the resource as 'behind a churn category' for a Provider over a period. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_participants by focusing on the churn drill-down context, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'The drill-down' implies that this tool is used to expand a churn category count, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools are cleanly separated by resource type: participants, access points, hosts, providers, incidents, anomalies, and SLA each have their own get/list vocabulary. The main ambiguous pairs are get_provider_sla vs get_provider_sla_by_key, list_providers vs list_public_providers, and get_summary vs get_network_summary.
The overall get_/list_ verb_noun pattern is consistent and readable, and plural/singular resource names are mostly clear. There are a few exceptions: get_provider_sla and get_country_providers return collections despite using get_, and list_provider_certs is more of an aggregate posture endpoint than a simple list.
43 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and will make the tool set harder for an agent to navigate defensibly. The tools are systematically grouped, but this looks like a broad REST API surface rather than a compact, purpose-fit MCP server.
For a read-only monitoring and directory domain, the coverage is unusually complete: list/detail endpoints, histories, SLA tables, churn breakdowns, anomalies, incidents, adoption aggregates, software landscape, and quality checks are all represented. The drill-down routes such as churn totals to churn participants also avoid dead ends.
