Lista as contas/empresas F360 conectadas a este install — id, label.
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": "f360_list_accounts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, label) and the scope ('conectadas a este install'). No contradictions with 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and output fields.
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 list tool with rich annotations, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks explanation of the optional 'account' parameter (e.g., whether it filters or specifies a specific account), and there is no output schema to detail return structure. Given siblings are similar, a bit more context would help.
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 input schema has one optional parameter 'account' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or explain its purpose. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not add meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 accounts/companies connected to this install and returns id and label. It uses a specific verb ('lista') and resource ('contas/empresas'), distinguishing it from sibling list tools for other 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 implies usage context (listing connected F360 accounts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but no exclusions or trade-offs are mentioned.
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.