RetailHardHat

List Rfis

list_rfis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when working with RetailHardHat rfis records in the connected organization. List rfis in your organization. Supports bounded pagination and search. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_rfis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Optional exact record UUID. Filters the authorized list to this record, without broadening permissions.
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`search`	No
`siteId`	No	Optional RetailHardHat location UUID, not a location name. Resolve names with list_sites first.
`status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds two real facts beyond that — pagination is bounded and approval requirements are admin-configurable with business workflow approvals always applying — though the approval sentence reads as boilerplate on a read-only list and it says nothing about ordering or empty results.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The scope sentence is front-loaded, which is good, but sentence one restates the tool name and the approval sentence adds bulk with little relevance to a listing call. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With six optional parameters, no enums, and an output schema already covering returns, the description should at minimum explain the search field's scope and the status filter's accepted values. It leaves both plus the get_rfi overlap unexplained, so an agent calling this correctly would still be guessing about filtering semantics.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%: only `id` and `siteId` are documented inline, while `limit`, `offset`, `search` and `status` carry no schema text at all. The description's "bounded pagination and search" gesture toward limit/offset/search but never gives bounds, defaults, or what `status` accepts, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

"List rfis in your organization" states a clear verb and resource, and "Supports bounded pagination and search" scopes the capability. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like get_rfi (which the `id` filter overlaps with) or list_rfi_comments, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage cue is the boilerplate "Use this when working with RetailHardHat rfis records in the connected organization," which is tautological with the tool name. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_rfi for a single record, or over create_rfi/update_rfi, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All RetailHardHat 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?