Active co-signers on this account.
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": "list_cosigner_memberships"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and it fails to state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or what a membership record contains. For a zero-parameter tool the risk is low, but nothing behavioral is disclosed.
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?
It is undeniably short and front-loaded, but it is a bare fragment with no verb, so the brevity comes at the cost of a complete sentence. The single phrase earns its place but is under-specified for the role it plays.
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 is simple: no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects. Against that low bar the description is barely adequate; it omits what fields a membership exposes (roles, addresses, status) and whether results are filtered to active memberships only.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The phrase "this account" implies the account scope is implicit context rather than an argument, consistent with the empty schema, and there is nothing else for the description to document.
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 is a noun fragment, "Active co-signers on this account," that restates the tool name rather than stating a verb. The qualifier "Active" does distinguish it from siblings like list_pending_cosigner_approvals and list_incoming_cosigner_invites, but the agent must infer that it returns a 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?
No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named. With siblings such as get_cosigner_rules, list_pending_cosigner_approvals, and list_incoming_cosigner_invites, the description does nothing to route the agent between them beyond the word "active."
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.