ProjectThunder

List ERP partners and consultants

list_erp_partners

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the firms and independent consultants in ProjectThunder's ERP partner directory, optionally filtered by ERP (for example Business Central or Dynamics NAV). Each listing includes location, ERPs, Microsoft credentials, products, services, specialties, industries and links. ProjectThunder premier partners (PremierPartner true) come first, then US-based members.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`erp`	No	Optional ERP filter by name or slug, for example "Business Central", "business-central" or "Dynamics NAV".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`erp`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`partners`	Yes
`erpsWithPartners`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / partners / items / properties / sanaPartnerStatus
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / partners / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "slug",
-  "name",
-  "kind",
-  "premierPartner",
-  "profileUrl",
-  "website",
-  "location",
-  "country",
-  "contact",
-  "contactTitle",
-  "contactLinkedIn",
-  "companyLinkedIn",
-  "erps",
-  "microsoftCredentials",
-  "products",
-  "services",
-  "specialties",
-  "industries",
-  "summary",
-  "listedOn",
-  "lastUpdated"
-]New value: +[
+  "slug",
+  "name",
+  "kind",
+  "premierPartner",
+  "sanaPartnerStatus",
+  "profileUrl",
+  "website",
+  "location",
+  "country",
+  "contact",
+  "contactTitle",
+  "contactLinkedIn",
+  "companyLinkedIn",
+  "erps",
+  "microsoftCredentials",
+  "products",
+  "services",
+  "specialties",
+  "industries",
+  "summary",
+  "listedOn",
+  "lastUpdated"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / partners / items / properties / premierPartner
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / partners / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "slug",
-  "name",
-  "kind",
-  "profileUrl",
-  "website",
-  "location",
-  "country",
-  "contact",
-  "contactTitle",
-  "contactLinkedIn",
-  "companyLinkedIn",
-  "erps",
-  "microsoftCredentials",
-  "products",
-  "services",
-  "specialties",
-  "industries",
-  "summary",
-  "listedOn",
-  "lastUpdated"
-]New value: +[
+  "slug",
+  "name",
+  "kind",
+  "premierPartner",
+  "profileUrl",
+  "website",
+  "location",
+  "country",
+  "contact",
+  "contactTitle",
+  "contactLinkedIn",
+  "companyLinkedIn",
+  "erps",
+  "microsoftCredentials",
+  "products",
+  "services",
+  "specialties",
+  "industries",
+  "summary",
+  "listedOn",
+  "lastUpdated"
+]

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the ordering rule (PremierPartner true first, then US-based members) and the full set of fields returned per listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, filter, then contents/ordering. No waste, though the field enumeration is somewhat list-heavy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still sketches listing contents and ordering. For a simple single-optional-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including name/slug examples. The description repeats the ERP filter examples without adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (firms and independent consultants in the ERP partner directory), and the field set each listing contains. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_erp_partner.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Indicates the optional ERP filter and its accepted forms, implying when to filter, but never names alternatives such as get_erp_partner for a single firm or assess_erp_commerce_fit for evaluations. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ProjectThunder tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?