harvest_list_clientsList clients, optionally filtered by active status or updated-since. Paginated. Harvest REST: GET /clients.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) for pagination. | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (1–2000, Harvest default 2000). | |
| is_active | No | Only active (true) or archived (false) clients. | |
| updated_since | No | Only clients updated since this ISO-8601 datetime. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safe-read nature. The description adds that results are paginated and filterable, but these are also evident from the schema. No extra behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or response shape is given. With annotations handling the main safety trait, a 3 is appropriate.
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 'List clients', no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and a read-only annotation, this description is adequate. It includes the endpoint and filter/pagination hints. Minor gaps: no response format mention and no reference to harvest_get_client for single-client lookups, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.
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%, with each of the 4 parameters having its own description. The description restates 'active status or updated-since' and 'Paginated' without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'clients' and mentions optional filters and pagination, clearly distinguishing it from get_client (single client) and other list_* tools. The REST endpoint reference reinforces the tool's scope.
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?
Provides clear context: lists clients, can filter by active status or updated-since, and is paginated. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over harvest_get_client or other list tools, but the list-vs-get distinction is implicit. Lacks explicit exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.