list_servicesThe service categories vendors on Mediawork offer, such as Editorial, Sound Post or Visual Effects. Each has a uuid — pass it as service to search_facilities to filter the directory to vendors offering that service. Call this first when a question is about a kind of work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Two-letter language code (en, fr, es, pt, it, de, nl, pl, th, hi, ko, ja). Defaults to English. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key integration behavior (pass uuid to search_facilities) and implies a read-only list operation. It does not explicitly state return format, but for a simple list this is sufficient and not misleading.
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, front-loaded with the key purpose, followed by a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.
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?
Given it is a simple list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return concept (each has a uuid) and the primary use case. No major gaps remain.
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?
The description does not mention the locale parameter, but the schema already documents it fully. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning 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 clearly states it lists service categories (Editorial, Sound Post, Visual Effects) and differentiates from search_facilities by explaining how the uuid feeds into it. The verb 'list' and resource 'service categories' are specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly advises calling this first when a question is about a kind of work, and explains how to pass the service uuid to search_facilities, giving a concrete alternative/next step. This is strong when-to-use 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.