supplier_due_reviewThe due-review report: every supplier whose record has not been reviewed in the last N days -- 90 unless you say otherwise -- most overdue first. A record never reviewed is always due, whatever its age. This is the report that keeps the directory from rotting. Pro feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | A record is due when its last review is older than this many days. Default 90 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses ordering, default days, the never-reviewed rule, and that this is a Pro featureachable. However, annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, and the description does not confirm whether invoking this report modifies any records or requires an activated license—only that it is a 'Pro feature.'
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 compact and front-loaded with the core definition, then moves to default, ordering, and the key edge case. The 'keeps the directory from rotting' line is slightly stylized but still reinforces the tool's purpose, and 'Pro feature' is useful placement information.
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 one-parameter report tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers the parameter default, the due criteria, ordering, and the never-reviewed edge case. It does not spell out the output fields or pagination, but 'every supplier whose record...' conveys the basic return shape and no output schema is present.
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 the schema already explains the days parameter and its 90-day default. The description restates this naturally and adds the never-reviewed behavior, but it does not add substantial new meaning about parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.
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 exactly what the tool does: it reports suppliers whose records have not been reviewed within a configurable window, with a clear default and sort order. It also specifies the never-reviewed edge case, which differentiates it from a plain supplier_list and from supplier_mark_reviewed.
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 is clear: use this report when you need suppliers that are overdue for review, rather than all suppliers. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
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.