Busca solicitantes por nome, e-mail ou telefone. Devolve o requestor_id correto para abrir chamado, e não exige perfil de administrador.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| telephone | No | ||
| can_open_ticket | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by stating that no admin privileges are needed and that the result is the requestor_id, which helps the agent understand its behavior and requirements.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and purpose. It is concise with no redundant information, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.
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?
The tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior (search by criteria, return requestor_id) and notes the no-admin requirement. It does not describe pagination or multiple results, but these are standard expectations for a search tool, so the description is mostly complete.
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 schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explicitly mentions name, email, and telephone as search criteria, covering half of the parameters, but does not clarify the purpose of 'limit', 'offset', or 'can_open_ticket'. This partial compensation is adequate but not complete.
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's function: searching for requesters by name, email, or phone, and returning the requestor_id for ticket opening. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tiflux_list_clients by specifying its exact purpose and output.
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 clear usage context: it is used to find the requestor_id needed to open a ticket, and notes that no admin profile is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity among similar listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.