Retrieve custom field definitions, showing active fields by default and optionally including archived definitions.
List custom field definitions. Active fields by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_archived | No | Include archived definitions. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the default result set is filtered to active definitions — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume for what could be a long list.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the default-scope note; nothing is redundant. It is however near the floor of what is useful, with no structural cues such as return shape or pagination.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with rich safety annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gaps — whether results are paginated and whether the list is capped — matter for a list endpoint against a potentially large definition set, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Include archived definitions,' so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Active fields by default' reinforces the default semantics of that flag, a marginal value-add that matches the baseline-3 expectation for high-coverage schemas.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'List custom field definitions,' which is unambiguous and immediately distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings create_custom_field and update_custom_field. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating scope (all fields vs. a subset), so it earns a 4 rather than 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?
'Active fields by default' implies the usage condition for the include_archived flag, but the reader must infer that archived fields are excluded unless requested. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool over create_custom_field / update_custom_field, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.