List custom attributes from LibreDesk, optionally filtered by the entity they apply to such as contact or conversation. Returns all attributes when no filter is given.
List Custom Attributes GET /api/v1/custom-attributes Tags: Custom attributes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applies_to | No | Return only attributes that apply to this entity, e.g. `contact` or `conversation`. Returns all when empty. (query parameter) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via the GET endpoint, but says nothing about authentication needs, result ordering, pagination, or what fields an attribute record contains — substantial gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the 'GET /api/v1/custom-attributes' and 'Tags: Custom attributes' lines are API-doc boilerplate that gives an agent little it can act on. Size is fine; content density is low.
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?
For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what an attribute looks like and whether results are paginated or complete. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to discover the response shape by trial.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'applies_to' filter is fully documented in the schema, including the empty-value behavior. The description adds no meaning 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 says 'List Custom Attributes' and gives the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/custom-attributes, so the verb and resource are identifiable. However, it largely restates the tool name and adds no scope detail (all attributes? per workspace?) nor any distinction from the sibling update_*_custom_attributes tools that operate on the same resource.
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 call this versus the sibling update_contact_custom_attributes / update_conversation_custom_attributes tools, and no stated preconditions. The only usage-like hint ('Returns all when empty') lives in the parameter schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.