list_indexList businesses covered by a Lodestar Stamp draft record. Optional market reads that market's index; omitted reads the primary record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Optional market slug from list_markets, for example chicago-hvac. Omit for the primary index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional market slug from list_markets, for example chicago-hvac. Omit for the primary index.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about market index selection and the default primary record, but it does not mention return format, pagination, or open-world dynamics beyond what annotations already indicate.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and the second explains the optional parameter. The main purpose is front-loaded and 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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and the only parameter. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the title and verb make the return type inferable, and the low complexity keeps the gap small.
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 already documents the 'market' parameter with 100% coverage, including an example and the 'omit for the primary index' behavior. The description restates the index/primary-record distinction but adds no material information beyond the schema.
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 ('businesses covered by a Lodestar Stamp draft record') and explains the optional market parameter. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_markets, list_sources, and find_business, which target different entities.
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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as find_business or list_markets. It explains the optional market behavior but does not describe selection criteria, exclusions, or when not to use the tool.
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.