traffit_list_clientsList client companies (CRM) with paging, filters and sort. Scope: client. GET /clients/.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1). | |
| sort | No | Sort order keyed by field name, e.g. {"created_at":"DESC"}. | |
| filter | No | Filters joined by AND, keyed by field name, e.g. {"created_at":{"value":"2026-01-01","comparison":">="}}. Custom fields work when exposed in the API. | |
| page_size | No | Records per page (default 20, max 100). |
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 the HTTP endpoint ('GET /clients/') and confirms the read-only, scoped nature, but says nothing about pagination metadata, default/maximum result windows beyond the schema, or rate limits.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The trailing 'Scope: client. GET /clients/.' fragment is slightly staccato but carries real information about the resource path.
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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, no required parameters and no output schema, the definition supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is that nothing hints at the shape of the paginated response or how to page past the max page_size.
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% – the schema documents page, page_size, sort and the nested filter/comparison structure in detail. The description only restates 'paging, filters and sort' without adding syntax or examples, 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?
Specific verb + resource: 'List client companies (CRM)' with paging, filters and sort, plus the endpoint GET /clients/. It is clearly a bulk-enumeration counterpart to the singular traffit_get_client, though that sibling is not named explicitly and the CRM-company scope has to be inferred.
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 versus traffit_get_client, traffit_list_contacts, or traffit_list_crm_activities. The only guidance is implicit in the word 'List' and the mention of paging/filters; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.