list_pending_importsList concierge import requests across all farms (admin only). Defaults to PENDING status.
List concierge import requests across all farms (admin only). Defaults to PENDING status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / skip / descriptionRemoved value: -"Pagination offset"Input schema / properties / skip / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / skip / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / status / descriptionRemoved value: -"Filter by status (default PENDING)"Input schema / properties / take / descriptionRemoved value: -"Page size"Input schema / properties / take / maximumAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / take / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / take / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the cross-farm scope and the admin-only authorization requirement, which the agent cannot infer from structured fields.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the default behavior stated last. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. But the pagination parameters are undocumented and no return-shape or result-limit context is given, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve by experimentation.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies the status parameter (defaults to PENDING) and says nothing about skip/take pagination, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (concierge import requests), plus a scope (across all farms) that distinguishes it from the single-item sibling get_import_request. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
"Defaults to PENDING status" and "(admin only)" imply when the tool is applicable and who can call it, giving useful implied context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_import_request or update_import_request_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.