qgiv_list_custom_fieldsCustom (additional-question) fields configured on the form(s): id, reference, title, input type, required flags, display flags. POST /customFields/list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Records to return (1-100, default 25). | |
| offset | No | Records to skip, for paging through a larger result (use next_offset from the previous reply). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying POST /customFields/list endpoint and the shape of returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior or whether results are scoped per form.
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 tight sentence plus an endpoint, front-loaded with the resource and field list. Every fragment earns its place, though the field enumeration slightly crowds out other potentially useful context.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the schema covers paging. The only soft spot is the phrase 'configured on the form(s)' while the tool exposes no form-scoping parameter, leaving the result scope 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 100%, so limit and offset are fully documented (including the next_offset paging tip) in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource ('Custom (additional-question) fields configured on the form(s)') and enumerates the returned attributes. Siblings are all unrelated resources (transactions, pledges, events), so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, which keeps this just short of a 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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to sibling list tools. The reader must infer that it is the only custom-field lister.
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.