List Propertyware prospects. One page; use next (preserves filters) for the following call. Requires PROSPECTS read permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| orderby | No | ||
| buildingID | No | Propertyware numeric record ID (string to preserve 64-bit precision) | |
| portfolioID | No | Propertyware numeric record ID (string to preserve 64-bit precision) | |
| lastModifiedDateTimeEnd | No | ||
| lastModifiedDateTimeStart | No |
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 useful behavioral context by naming the required PROSPECTS read permission and pagination behavior, but 'next' is not defined in the input schema and no output schema clarifies it.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded, and wastes no words. It communicates the core action, pagination behavior, and permission requirement in three concise sentences.
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 list tool with nine optional filter parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers pagination and permissions but omits meaningful guidance on filter parameters and leaves 'next' ambiguous.
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 22%, with descriptions present for buildingID and portfolioID only. The description does not explain type, status, orderby, limit, offset, or date filters, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage and leaves most parameters semantically vague.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List Propertyware prospects.' This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling propertyware_get_prospect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is understandable without opening the schema.
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?
The description gives some usage context: it returns one page, says to use 'next' for the following call, and notes the required permission. However, it does not explain when to use this list tool versus filtering alternatives or the singular get_prospect tool.
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.