waitlistList clients currently waiting for salon appointments with pagination and optional cache bypass for up-to-date scheduling follow-up.
Clients on the waitlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that results are paginated, that a local cache exists and can be bypassed, or how the waitlist is ordered — all context an agent would want here.
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?
One short sentence is not overly long, but it is under-specified rather than concise: for a paginated, cache-aware list endpoint this leaves every operational question unanswered. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say what a call returns (a paged collection of waitlist client records) and note pagination/caching behavior. It does none of that, leaving a 3-parameter list tool with no reliable picture of its result shape.
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%, with page, per_page and fresh each self-documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing further (e.g. what 'fresh' means for waitlist data staleness), so it cannot exceed that baseline.
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?
"Clients on the waitlist" restates the tool name/title as a noun phrase with no verb, so it never says whether this lists, counts, or retrieves waitlist clients. It does identify the resource (waitlisted clients), but an agent gets no confirmation of the operation being a paginated read.
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 versus the many customer- or appointment-oriented siblings (e.g. appointment_requests, customer_visit_history). No prerequisites, no exclusions, only an implied 'this is about waitlisted clients'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.