zendesk_list_satisfaction_ratingsList customer satisfaction (CSAT) ratings, optionally filtered by score. Zendesk REST: GET /satisfaction_ratings.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for offset pagination. | |
| score | No | Filter by rating state, e.g. 'good', 'bad', or 'received'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the optional score filter and API endpoint, but these are either present in the schema or are factual details rather than behavioral traits (e.g., no pagination specifics, no response format). It does not contradict annotations.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List customer satisfaction ratings') and mentions filtering. No wasted words.
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 two optional parameters and complete schema descriptions, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit details about pagination behavior or return payload, but the page parameter is documented. A small gap remains regarding response structure, so 4.
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?
Both parameters have thorough descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of filtering by score adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. The baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists customer satisfaction (CSAT) ratings with an optional score filter, and references the specific Zendesk REST endpoint. It is distinct from sibling tools which target tickets, users, organizations, etc.
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 implies usage for listing CSAT ratings and mentions optional filtering, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. There are no direct alternative tools for satisfaction ratings, so the context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.