Busca um(a) Agenda unificada: compromissos e tarefas na mesma lista por id (OData /AppointmentsTasks/{id}). Use $expand para sub-recursos.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $select | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that it is an OData endpoint, supports $expand, and accepts batched ids, providing extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, with two short paragraphs that lead with the core purpose and then add bulk support. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the resource type and key OData capabilities. It does not detail return fields or query parameters, but it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It explains 'id' (by id), 'ids' (batched execution), and '$expand' (sub-resources), but does not describe 'query' or '$select', leaving some parameters under-specified.
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 retrieves a unified agenda of appointments and tasks by id, using an OData endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like get_appointments and get_tasks by combining both resource types into one list.
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 hints like using $expand for sub-resources and bulk support via ids, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over legalone_get_appointments or legalone_get_tasks. The context is implied but not stated with exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.