Podyx MCP

podyx_list_service

Read-onlyIdempotent

List paginated catalog services in authoring or offer views, filter inactive items, and fetch independently paginated configured prices for service review and planning.

Instructions

List catalog services GET /api/v2/services. Catalog owns JSON normalization, versioning, links, configured prices and lifecycle. Authoring includes drafts; view=offers reuses customer buyability. Configured prices are independently paginated with prices_page/prices_per_page and refer to current service versions. Amounts are configured catalog rates, not a dated customer quote. Omitted links/override sections preserve; [] clears the submitted collection. Archive deactivates; restore reactivates and enforces existing room allowances. Mutations require a UUID Idempotency-Key and current primary/linked-resource authority, including receipt replay. Read/preview only. Follow all pagination; a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price.

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": "podyx_list_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description instead spends most of its text on mutation semantics (Idempotency-Key, archive/restore, [] clearing collections) that do not apply to this read-only tool, which risks misleading the agent into preparing headers or side effects the call will never use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is a run-on block of loosely related statements mixing listing, quoting, archiving, and authorization concerns. Key listing information (pagination, view semantics) is buried after definitional filler about catalog ownership and lifecycle.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and ten undocumented parameters, the description should explain return shape, filtering, and pagination behavior. It instead omits return structure entirely and devotes space to mutation/idempotency details irrelevant to a read-only list, leaving the definition short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across ten nested query parameters. The description explains view, prices_page/prices_per_page, and loosely pagination, but leaves include_inactive, room_id, setup_id, service_id, page, and per_page undocumented, so most parameters carry no meaning beyond their names.

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 opening clause 'Lists catalog services GET /api/v2/services' gives a specific verb and resource, which is immediately actionable. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as podyx_v1_list_services or podyx_get_service, so the agent must guess which of the three to call.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Authoring includes drafts; view=offers reuses customer buyability' gives conditional context for the view parameter, and 'Follow all pagination' is a directive. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-podyx_v1_list_services guidance and no stated prerequisites, so routing remains implied.

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

Deploy Server