Retrieve the list of managers (staff) associated with a specific company in Accelo CRM. Use pagination and field selection to customize the results.
List the managers (staff) of a company.
Args: company_id: Company ID fields: Additional fields on the returned staff objects page: Page number (0-indexed) limit: Results per page (max 100)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| company_id | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination behavior (page is 0-indexed, limit max 100) and that fields selects extra staff fields, but it omits permission requirements, response format, and any read-only safety context.
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, followed by a compact Args block. Every line serves a purpose, though the Args formatting is plain and could be tighter.
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 simple list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation and parameters adequately, but it does not explain the returned staff object shape or fields usage. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent might need for pagination and result interpretation.
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 document parameters, and it does cover all four: company_id, fields, page, and limit. It adds useful semantics for page indexing and limit cap, though company_id is documented only as 'Company ID' and fields format is unspecified.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('managers (staff) of a company'), so an agent can tell it apart from generic staff or company listings. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like accelo_add_company_manager or accelo_remove_company_manager, but the list scope is clear.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus accelo_list_staff, accelo_list_companies, or the add/remove manager siblings. The description only states the operation, leaving selection entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.