sale_listList every bill of sale, drafts and finalized, newest first: id, status, date, item, buyer, seller and price. Filter to drafts or finalized documents with status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum rows, default 500 | |
| status | No | Which documents to list: all (default), draft, or final |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: newest-first ordering, inclusion of both drafts and finalized documents, and the exact attributes returned. It does not mention pagination or the 500-row limit, but those are discoverable in the schema and minor for this simple read operation.
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 sentences carry the full semantic load with no filler. The action and scope appear first, followed by the returned fields and filter capability.
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 low-complexity read-only list tool, the description plus schema covers required parameters, filtering, ordering, and return fields. The only minor gap is that the phrase 'every bill of sale' is not qualified by the 500-row limit, but the limit is specified in the schema and there is no pagination expected.
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 100%, and both parameters carry clear descriptions and enums. The tool description restates the status filter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List every bill of sale'), adds scope (drafts and finalized), ordering (newest first), and the returned fields. This makes it easy to distinguish from the single-document sale_get and aggregate sale_summary siblings.
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 context for using the tool is clear: it is the list-all operation with an optional status filter, contrasted implicitly with sibling tools that create, delete, finalize, get, or summarize bills of sale. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope statement leaves little ambiguity.
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.