List the company's suppliers (id, name, email, phone, lead time in days).
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_suppliers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does partially compensate by disclosing the return shape (id, name, email, phone, lead time in days), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, result volume, or permission requirements for a read operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is compact and informative rather than wasteful. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the key missing structured data is the shape of the response, and the description supplies it by naming the fields. Remaining gaps are minor and plausibly irrelevant to this API, such as pagination or sort order.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description's field list describes outputs rather than inputs, which is not a parameter concern.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the company's suppliers") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create_supplier, but the read-only verb makes the distinction obvious.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving supplier records rather than creating them, but the description gives no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. No mention of pagination, filtering, or limits that would guide invocation.
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.