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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it explicitly states 'Reads only' to signal safety, discloses the sort order (A–Z by name), and lists every returned field including the recency metric. No hidden side effects are implied.
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 tight sentences: the first names the output plus ordering, the second names the filters and read-only nature. Everything earns its place and key facts are front-loaded.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, sort order, filtering behavior, and safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to make the call correctly is missing.
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 documents q and category precisely, including case-insensitivity. The description's 'Filter by category and by free text across every field' only summarizes those parameters rather than adding new meaning, so it earns the baseline.
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 the supplier directory'—and spells out exactly what is returned: contact, payment terms, lead time, and review recency. It is unambiguous about being a list/read operation, so it cannot be confused with supplier_add, supplier_update, or supplier_get.
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 establishes clear use context: use when you need the supplier directory A–Z, optionally filtered by category or free text. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but 'Reads only' plus the list framing makes the appropriate situation evident.
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.