builderprime_list_meetingsRead meetings beginning in a required date range (epoch milliseconds). Requires meetings.read; page is zero-based, limit max100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| employee_id | No | ||
| start_date_to | Yes | Unix epoch milliseconds, not seconds. | |
| opportunity_id | No | ||
| start_date_from | Yes | Unix epoch milliseconds, not seconds. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the non-obvious operational facts: the required 'meetings.read' permission scope, zero-based paging and a hard limit cap of 100. It does not say what ordering results come back in or how to detect the last page, which with no output schema would be useful.
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 front-loaded sentence that packs the scope, permission requirement and pagination constraints with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.
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 six parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: date-range requirement and units, auth scope, and pagination behavior. The only shortfall is silence on the two optional filter parameters and result ordering.
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?
With only 33% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does cover page and limit semantics and reinforces the epoch-milliseconds format. However employee_id and opportunity_id are filtering parameters never explained in either schema or description, leaving a real gap.
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?
Specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('meetings') plus a scoping qualifier ('beginning in a required date range'), which disambiguates it from sibling get_meeting and clarifies that filtering is on start time, not overlap. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stops short of 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the collection-vs-single distinction (list_meetings vs get_meeting), but the description never states when to prefer this over get_meeting or how to page through results. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the permission scope.
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.