List the organization's sites (job locations: name, address, lat/lng, client company, external key). Filters: active (true, the default, false or all), q (name, address or client company) and project_id (sites linked to that project). Read tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Substring of the name, address or client company | |
| active | No | Default true (active sites only) | |
| project_id | No | Only sites linked to this project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior is already declared by annotations, so the description needn't repeat it. What it adds is the field shape of results and the 'Read tier' note, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering for an organization-wide listing.
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?
Two tight sentences: the resource and its returned fields are front-loaded, then filters follow. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully lists the fields returned and covers all parameters, which is enough to call the tool correctly. Missing pagination/limit behavior and ordering for a potentially large org-wide list keeps it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry descriptions that the prose largely restates (q matches name/address/client company, active defaults true, project_id scopes to a project). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description does usefully surface the 'active' default in context.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('List the organization's sites') and enumerates what a site contains (name, address, lat/lng, client company, external key), which clearly separates it from the singular tascan_get_site and from tascan_list_zones/projects. An agent can recognize the tool's job without opening the schema.
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?
It documents each filter and the important default (active=true lists only active sites; false/all change scope), giving clear conditions for narrowing results. It stops short of naming alternatives such as tascan_get_site for a single record or tascan_list_projects for the parent entity.
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.
