Open tickets, the weekly flow of tickets in and out, the busiest clients and each technician's open work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many rows to list (default 10, at most 50). | |
| client | No | A client name or its initials. Leave it out for the whole company. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds content-level context by naming the sections returned (open tickets, in/out flow, busiest clients, per-technician workload), which hints at an aggregated report shape. It says nothing about filtering behavior, time window, or how the client param scopes results.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler. The content list is front-loaded, though it reads as a data inventory rather than an action-oriented statement, which slightly weakens scannability.
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 aggregated report with no output schema, the description conveys the data domains covered, which is the minimum an agent needs to route to it. It omits the time window for 'weekly flow' and any indication of whether it responds with aggregated metrics versus raw rows.
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%, so both limit and client are already fully documented in the schema (default 10, max 50; client name or initials, omit for whole company). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
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 lists what the tool surfaces (open tickets, ticket flow, busiest clients, technician open work), which pins it to the service-desk domain. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb (report? list? summarize?), and it never distinguishes itself from sibling overview tools like client_overview or estate_overview. Purpose is inferable but not precisely stated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the overlapping siblings (client_overview, estate_overview, patch_status) that could also describe tickets or clients. The agent must guess when this report is preferable to those.
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.
