projects_get_external_servicesList external/subcontractor service lines on a project, with budgeted vs adjusted cost and markup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | Row offset. This tool has no cursor - page with offset. | |
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | ||
| warning | No | Present only when the page is truncated. | |
| pagination | Yes | ||
| external_services | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it lists external/subcontractor lines and highlights budgeted/adjusted cost and markup as the returned data.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the data details. Every word 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 simple read-only list with an output schema and explicit offset pagination in the schema, the description is largely complete. It is only missing guidance on choosing between this and sibling project tools, which is a minor gap given the clear scope.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%: offset is well described in the schema, while project_id lacks a schema description. The phrase 'on a project' helps clarify that project_id identifies the parent project, but the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented required parameter or add format/value details.
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 and resource: 'List external/subcontractor service lines on a project'. It also tells what data is included (budgeted vs adjusted cost and markup), which clearly distinguishes it from the create/update/delete external-service siblings and other project getters.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The intended use can be inferred from 'List', but the description does not tell an agent when this tool is preferable to, e.g., projects_get_finance or other read-only project tools.
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 follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.