agreement_listList service agreements newest first: parties, status, rate, dates and the clauses each carries. Filter by status and by client. An agreement is active until it is expired; the free tier holds 3 active agreements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | Only agreements whose client contains this text, case-insensitive | |
| status | No | Only agreements at this status: draft, sent, signed, expired |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds ordering behavior ('newest first'), a business rule ('active until expired'), and a quota constraint ('free tier holds 3 active agreements'), which go beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination or explicitly state read-only, but listing inherently implies read-only and the added constraints are valuable.
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 three concise sentences: the main action and ordering are front-loaded, followed by returned fields and filters, then a relevant business rule. There is no waste; every sentence earns its place.
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 simple list tool with two optional filters, the description covers purpose, ordering, returned fields, filters, and a business constraint. The only minor gap is pagination or result limits, which are not mentioned, but for this tool the provided context is largely sufficient.
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%, with both client and status already described with their semantics. The description only echoes 'Filter by status and by client' without adding new meaning. Since the schema already provides parameter details, the description adds no extra value beyond confirmation.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List service agreements'), specifies ordering ('newest first'), enumerates the returned fields (parties, status, rate, dates, clauses), and lists the two filters. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agreement_get (single retrieval) and agreement_create (creation).
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 makes the listing intent obvious and mentions the filtering options, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like agreement_get or state when not to use it. The 'list' verb and filter semantics imply a browse scenario, but no direct sibling differentiation is provided.
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.