Standard Metrics MCP Server

list_information_requests

Retrieve a paginated list of information requests for your firm, with optional filtering by request name.

Instructions

List all information requests associated with the firm.

Args: name: Filter by request name page: Page number for pagination (default: 1) per_page: Results per page (default: 100, max: 100)

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_information_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`page`	No
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJan 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and filtering but omits details like result ordering, default behavior when no filter is applied, or error conditions. For a read-only list tool, some behavioral context is missing.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. Parameter details are listed clearly. Unnecessary words are absent, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple list operation and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It covers parameters and scope, but lacks details on return structure, ordering, or potential errors, which would enhance completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so descriptions add value: 'Filter by request name' clarifies the 'name' parameter, and 'page number' and 'results per page with defaults/max' explain pagination. This is sufficient for basic usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'List all information requests', identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_information_reports' by a different resource, but does not elaborate on scope or filtering beyond the firm context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search or other list tools). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The description assumes basic knowledge.

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