Retrieve legal entities belonging to your organization. Filter results by country code and paginate with limit and offset to browse entities efficiently.
List legal entities belonging to the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| country | No | Filter by country code (ISO 2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are org-scoped, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering even though limit/offset exist.
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 nine-word sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing to trim.
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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not mention the country filter or that results are paginated. It covers the essentials without being complete.
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, offset, and country are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List legal entities') plus a scope ('belonging to the organization'), which separates it from the singular sibling get_entity. However it never names get_entity or any other alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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 when-to-use context, no prerequisite, and no pointer to the singular get_entity for retrieving one entity. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.