cliento_list_resource_servicesPreview API: Services as this resource offers them, including its duration, price and override settings. Requires services:read. Read-only; this API may change without a version bump.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Opaque nextCursor from the same list. For stock movements an earlier movement ID also works. | |
| limit | No | ||
| locationId | Yes | ||
| resourceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safe-read profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by naming the required scope (services:read) and warning that this is a preview API that may change without a version bump. It doesn't discuss pagination behavior, though the schema covers the cursor parameter.
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 compact sentences with no filler; the payload description and the auth/preview caveats are front-loaded. Phrasing is slightly awkward ('Services as this resource offers them') but not wasteful.
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?
There is no output schema, so describing the returned fields is helpful, and the preview/scope caveats are welcome. However, for a 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description never explains the required location/resource scoping or pagination, leaving an agent to guess at call-correctness details.
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 only 25% – locationId and resourceId have no descriptions at all – and the description does not compensate by explaining that these are required scoping identifiers or what the limit/after pagination means. Only the 'after' parameter carries schema documentation, leaving the two required parameters semantically bare.
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?
States a specific resource ('Services as this resource offers them') and enumerates the returned attributes (duration, price, override settings), which distinguishes it from the sibling cliento_list_services that presumably lists all services. The verb is softened to 'Preview', but the intent is clear enough for an agent to select it.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer this over cliento_list_services or cliento_get_service. The agent must infer from the name that this is the per-resource variant rather than a global service listing.
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.