Fetch Zoho CRM assignment rules to understand how leads and deals are automatically assigned to users.
Get assignment rules
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": "crm_get_assignment_rules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read operation via 'get', but does not describe any side effects, permissions, output format, or pagination behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation backup.
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?
The description is concise to the point of being under-specified. It is a single short phrase that restates the tool name, offering no substantive content. While it is not bloated, it fails to earn its place by providing any additional value.
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?
The description is incomplete given the lack of output schema and the ambiguity of 'assignment rules'. It does not explain what assignment rules are, in which CRM module they apply, or what the returned data looks like. This makes it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's full purpose.
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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that don't exist.
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 "Get assignment rules" is essentially a restatement of the tool name, adding no new information. It fails to explain what 'assignment rules' refer to and does not differentiate this tool from other 'get' tools in the CRM family.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or similar tools, leaving the agent without any basis for choosing this tool over other CRM-related 'get' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.