list_organizationsList the knowledge organizations (company evidence libraries) the signed-in TenderCrest user belongs to. Needs a TenderCrest 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_organizations"
}
}| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description doesn't need to restate it. The description adds two genuine facts beyond annotations: an auth prerequisite and that results are implicitly scoped to the caller with no filtering options. It says nothing about return shape or ordering, which would matter given no output schema.
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 short sentences with the resource definition front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name or title.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, whose data is returned, and the account requirement. The remaining gap is the shape of returned organization objects, which the agent would have to discover at call time.
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, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description correctly does not invent parameter discussion.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the knowledge organizations") and even disambiguates the overloaded term with a parenthetical ("company evidence libraries"). It also scopes the result to the signed-in user's memberships. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_evidence, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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 one concrete guideline is the prerequisite "Needs a TenderCrest account," which is useful gating information. There is no guidance on when to pick this over list_evidence or how to discover organization IDs used elsewhere, so usage is only implied.
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.