Count companies in Accelo CRM that match your filters, including website, name, phone, or fax search, so you can gauge result totals before listing records.
Count companies matching the given filters.
Args: filters: Same filters as accelo_list_companies search: Search over website, name, phone, fax
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| filters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Count' implies a read-only aggregate, but the description does not state behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, whether it respects the same permission scoping as list_companies, or any rate-limit considerations.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is a bit raw/docstring-like but does add parameter context without excess verbosity.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: return shape (a count? a number?), error behavior, and permission model are unaddressed.
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% for both parameters, and the description partially compensates by stating the 'search' scope (website, name, phone, fax) and that 'filters' mirrors accelo_list_companies. However, it provides no format details for filters, and the search field semantics are only loosely clarified.
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 (Count) and resource (companies) with the scoping condition (matching the given filters). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling accelo_list_companies beyond the count-vs-list distinction, which is somewhat self-evident from the names.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It references accelo_list_companies for filter semantics, but does not say when a caller should prefer count over list (e.g., for aggregation or pagination-free totals).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.