ACC.MCP

aps_list_submittal_packages

Retrieve submittal package summaries including title, identifier, spec section, description, and dates from an ACC project.

Instructions

List submittal packages in an ACC project. Returns a compact summary: title, identifier, spec section, description, dates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "aps_list_submittal_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID (UUID or 'b.' prefixed – auto‑converted).
`limit`	No	Max items per page (1–200). Default 20.
`offset`	No	Pagination offset. Default 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Mar 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Discloses return type (compact summary), implying limited data. Does not explicitly mention pagination, read-only nature, or project_id auto-conversion (schema does that). Still adds value beyond schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, 20 words. Front-loaded with action and resource, then output summary. No filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a list tool with comprehensible output. Lacks distinction from similar sibling tools (e.g., vs 'aps_list_submittal_items') but schema provides pagination details. Could briefly clarify scope of 'packages' vs 'items'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage; all parameters are already documented. Description adds no extra semantic information beyond what schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states action (list), resource (submittal packages), scope (in ACC project), and output (compact summary with fields). Distinguishes from sibling like 'aps_list_submittal_items' by specifying 'packages' vs 'items'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies return format (compact summary) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'aps_get_submittal_item' or 'aps_list_submittal_items'. No when-not-to-use or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.