GET genérico em qualquer coleção/recurso OData do LegalOne. Informe entity (ex.: "Litigations") e opcionalmente id; suporta $filter/$expand/$select/$top/$skip/$orderby. Use isto para entidades não cobertas por uma tool nomeada.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ids | No | ||
| $top | No | ||
| $skip | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| $count | No | ||
| entity | Yes | ||
| $expand | No | ||
| $filter | No | ||
| $select | No | ||
| $orderby | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning support for OData query operators (filter/expand/select/top/skip/orderby) and bulk execution via `ids`, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions detected.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, parameter hints, and bulk support without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds examples and options efficiently, earning a high score for structure.
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 generic OData GET tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the target resource, gives an example, lists supported OData options, and notes bulk capabilities. It does not describe response format, but that is standard OData JSON and not essential for a read-only tool. The description is complete for the tool's intended use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `entity` with an example, mentions `id` as optional, and lists several OData query parameters ($filter, $expand, etc.). However, it does not explain `$count` or the `query` object, and only briefly mentions `ids` for bulk support. While it adds meaning for key parameters, it leaves some undefined, so a score of 3 reflects partial coverage.
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 'GET genérico em qualquer coleção/recurso OData do LegalOne', specifying the action (GET) and the resource (any OData collection). It also provides a concrete example ('Litigations') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting 'entidades não cobertas por uma tool nomeada', making its purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly says 'Use isto para entidades não cobertas por uma tool nomeada', providing clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly when-not-to-use (for entities with dedicated tools). It also lists supported OData query options and mentions bulk support, giving practical usage context without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.