supplier_listList the supplier directory A to Z by name: contact, payment terms, lead time, when each record was last reviewed and how many days ago that was. Filter by category and by free text across every field. Reads only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Only suppliers whose name, category, contact, terms or notes contain this text, case-insensitive | |
| category | No | Only suppliers in exactly this category, case-insensitive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads only.' It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the sort order (A to Z by name), the exact fields returned, and the filtering capabilities, which helps set expectations for the tool's output.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action, sort order, returned fields, and filtering options. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause adds useful 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?
With no output schema, the description adequately covers return values by listing the fields included in the directory listing. It also covers sorting and filtering behavior. Minor gaps exist, such as whether the filters are combined or the result limit behavior, but these do not prevent correct invocation for typical use.
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 the q and category parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'Filter by category and by free text across every field,' which aligns with the schema but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.
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 the supplier directory A to Z by name,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also enumerates the returned fields (contact, payment terms, lead time, review dates) and mentions filtering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like supplier_get or supplier_add.
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 usage context explicit: this is the directory-listing tool with category and free-text filters, so an agent can infer it is the right choice for browsing or filtering suppliers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.
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.