Lista os CRMs conectados neste install. Retorna cada um com id, rótulo e is_default (true quando só há um, não precisa passar account nas outras tools).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, label, is_default) and the meaning of is_default, which is not available from annotations alone. No contradiction exists; the description complements the safety profile.
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, concise sentence (or two clauses) that front-loads the main action ('Lista os CRMs conectados') and then provides essential details about return fields and default behavior. No redundant information or filler; every phrase 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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail by enumerating the output fields (id, label, is_default) and explaining the is_default semantics. It covers the necessary information for an agent to use the tool correctly, and the annotations cover the safety aspects.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. With no schema properties, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters but provides relevant output semantics, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 clearly states the tool lists connected CRMs with specific fields (id, label, is_default). It uses a specific verb 'Lista' and a resource 'CRMs conectados', distinguishing it from sibling crm_* tools that operate on records, objects, files, etc. No ambiguity.
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 usage context by explaining that is_default is true when only one CRM exists, obviating the need to pass an 'account' parameter to other tools. It does not explicitly state when to use or not use alternatives, but the context implies this tool is for discovering available accounts before other operations. It gives clear contextual guidance without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.