Retrieve Zendesk SLA policies with their targets grouped by priority and metric, so admins can audit service-level agreements and resolve coverage gaps.
List the SLA policies with their targets by priority and metric.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the shape of the returned data ('targets by priority and metric'), which is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause earns its place by stating the resource and the returned content.
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 parameters, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. Only the absence of explicit usage guidance keeps it short of perfect.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could reasonably add about parameter meaning.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SLA policies') and summarizes the content returned ('targets by priority and metric'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, which is acceptable since none of the siblings touch SLA policies.
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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. For a zero-argument read tool the usage is largely self-evident, but the description offers no guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.