easyjur_list_agenda
Read-onlyIdempotent
Lista itens de agenda (prazos, compromissos, tarefas).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| page_size | No |
EasyJur
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that (e.g., pagination, authentication needs, or return format). Since annotations carry the safety burden, a score of 3 reflects that the description does not enhance transparency further.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence that leads with the action and resource. There is zero extraneous content, and every word contributes to the core meaning. This is exemplary conciseness, even if under-specification is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters including a nested query object, and no output schema. The description does not mention return values, pagination behavior, or how to construct queries. For a moderately complex list tool, more context is expected to enable correct usage, especially without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation for the parameters page, query, or page_size. It does not clarify what the query object should contain or how pagination works, leaving the agent without essential guidance. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (agenda items), and even specifies that agenda items include deadlines, commitments, and tasks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like easyjur_get_agenda (single item) and easyjur_list_agenda_grupo (likely lists groups). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several sibling list tools (e.g., easyjur_list_agenda_grupo, easyjur_get_agenda) and many other list tools, the absence of any contextual advice leaves the agent to infer usage. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.