Retrieve permission-filtered Frappe records and fields with filters and limits through the standard REST API.
List permission-filtered records and fields through the standard Frappe REST API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| doctype | Yes | ||
| filters | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — results are 'permission-filtered' — but says nothing about default page size (limit=20 in schema), ordering, pagination, or what happens with an invalid doctype. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.
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 with the scoping qualifier ('permission-filtered') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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-shape explanation is not required, but the description still leaves the agent without the doctype/filters/limit semantics needed to call a 4-parameter listing tool correctly. Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is well short of adequate.
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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'fields' is faintly gestured at by 'records and fields' and 'standard Frappe REST API' hints at Frappe filter syntax, but doctype, limit, and the shape of filters are never explained.
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 verb 'List' and the object 'records and fields' are present, giving a rough sense of a query operation, but the phrasing is abstract and never mentions 'documents' or 'doctype', which is the required parameter and the real subject of the tool. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as get_document, list_doctypes, or run_report.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_document (single record) or run_report, and no mention of preconditions such as needing a known doctype. The phrase 'standard Frappe REST API' implies a convention but gives no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.