PAKT MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_contracts

Retrieve and filter your account's contracts by status or company, showing company, dates, role, and analysis state. Use get_contract for one contract's risk details.

Instructions

List the account's contracts: company, status, dates, our role, and whether the document is in and analysed. Use get_contract for one contract's risks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_contracts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No	Only contracts in this status.
`company`	No	Only this company's contracts: part of its name, in any case.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that this is a read/list operation. There is no mention of ordering, pagination, result limits, or any permission requirements, which matters for an account-wide listing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the routing hint comes last. The enumeration of returned fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both optional filters are covered by the schema. The remaining gap is operational behavior (ordering, pagination/limits) that an agent listing an account's contracts would reasonably want.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both filter parameters (status, company) are already fully documented in the schema; the description only alludes to them in passing. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate 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.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List the account's contracts') plus the scope of the listing (account-wide, with the fields it surfaces). It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can separate it from get_contract without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes single-contract risk lookups to get_contract, giving a clear use/use-other split. It stops short of covering the other siblings (analyze_contract, compare_amendment) or stating when a listing is the wrong choice.

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

Deploy Server