Fetch existing select options by property ID to map card values to the numeric option IDs used for single-select fields.
Find existing select options. Card values use an array of numeric option IDs, including single-select properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| property_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| next_offset | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / offset / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / property_id / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context that returned options are referenced as numeric IDs inside arrays on card values. It omits pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters and says nothing about how filtering or result ordering works.
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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the usage note. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of missing 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter documentation for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, plus no statement that results are per-property, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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 0%, so all four parameters — including the required property_id — carry no documented meaning in either place. The description clarifies only the output side (numeric option IDs), not what property_id, query, limit, or offset do or how query matches option names.
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?
"Find existing select options" names a verb and a resource, so the basic action is legible. However, it never says the options are scoped to a specific property (the required property_id), and it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings such as kaiten_list_catalog_values or kaiten_list_custom_properties, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 second sentence implies the intended use — retrieving numeric option IDs before assigning card values — which is genuine implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (a property must exist and be of select type), and no routing to alternative list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.