classification_listList an organization's classifications with automation settings for AI replies, drafts, auto-close, default assignees, prompts, and templates.
List the classifications of an organization with their automation settings (AI reply, draft, auto close, default assignee, prompt, template).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that automation settings are bundled into the output, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or permissions. A 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource and then listing the returned fields. Every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, which compensates well. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination of a list operation, but for a one-parameter read tool the definition is close to 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?
With 100% schema description coverage on the single organizationId parameter (including the pointer to organization_list), the schema already carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so 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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (classifications) with organizational scope, and enumerates the included automation settings (AI reply, draft, auto close, assignee, prompt, template). It is clearly distinct in intent from classification_get, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.
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 tool versus classification_get, classification_statistics, or classification_impact. The only routing hint ('Use organization_list to find it') is attached to the parameter, not the tool, so it belongs to the schema, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.