projects_get_pricing_groupsList the billing rate groups on a project, including which team members are assigned to each. Revenue on Time / Time&Material projects = logged hours x the assigned group's hourly_rate, so an employee with no group bills at 0 - those are listed in members_without_rate. Rates are in the workspace currency, returned as meta.currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: employees without a group bill at 0 and appear in members_without_rate, and rates are returned in the workspace currency under meta.currency. This gives the agent useful expectations about edge cases and return format without contradicting the 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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core output, the second explains the revenue formula and a key edge case, and the third clarifies currency context. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned entities (groups, assigned members, members_without_rate), the meaning of hourly_rate, and the currency location. The main gap is not stating whether project_id must reference a specific project type or whether inactive projects are included, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema provides zero description for project_id and the description only indirectly defines it by saying 'on a project'. For a single simple parameter this is sufficient to convey its role, but the description does not add explicit details about the expected format, where the ID comes from, or any constraints. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
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') with a clear resource ('billing rate groups on a project') and adds the secondary purpose of showing team member assignments. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like projects_get or projects_get_finance, and the name plus description align cleanly.
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 description implies usage context by explaining how the returned rates drive revenue on Time / Time&Material projects, which helps an agent know when this data matters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as projects_get_finance or projects_get_billing_plan, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
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.