List the bank accounts connected to Papierkram (name, IBAN, balance data as Papierkram reports it). Paged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-based (default 1). Use next_page from the previous reply. | |
| order_by | No | Field to sort by, e.g. document_date. Must be used together with order_direction. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page, 1-100 (default 100). | |
| order_direction | No | Sort direction. Must be used together with order_by. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by naming the returned fields (name, IBAN, balance as Papierkram reports it) and flagging pagination, but gives no detail on result ordering, total counts, or what an empty connection list means.
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 verb and resource, then the returned fields, then pagination. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.
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 full schema coverage and readOnlyHint, the description is close to sufficient, and it usefully lists returned fields in the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps are ordering behavior and the absence of any note about connection status or filters.
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 page, page_size, order_by and order_direction all documented including constraints and the paired-use rule. The description contributes only the word 'Paged', which adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('bank accounts connected to Papierkram'), and enumerates the returned fields (name, IBAN, balance). The resource is distinct enough from the sibling papierkram_list_bank_transactions that an agent can tell them apart, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.
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 only implied by the purpose: an agent wanting the list of connected bank accounts will pick this. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion versus papierkram_list_bank_transactions, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether a Papierkram connection must exist first).
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.