Retrieve services and pricing the AI can quote or offer, with active items returned by default and optional inactive items included.
List services. Services and pricing the AI can quote and, with booking on, offer. Active only by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1 to 100. Default 25. | |
| starting_after | No | The next_cursor from the previous page. | |
| include_inactive | No | Include items switched off. Default false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world listing, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what a service represents (quotable pricing, booking eligibility) but says nothing about result ordering, page size behavior, or what fields come back.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then meaning, then the default filter. Slight redundancy between "List services" and the following sentence, but nothing wasted.
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?
A simple read-only list tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema; the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to call it. Minor gap: no note on how to page through results beyond the cursor parameter's own schema text.
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%, so limit, starting_after, and include_inactive are all fully documented in the schema. The description's "active only by default" restates the include_inactive default rather than extending it, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("List services") and adds domain meaning by explaining that services carry the pricing the AI can quote and, when booking is enabled, offer. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_service or create_service, but it does not name them explicitly.
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?
The only usage signal is "Active only by default," which implies the include_inactive escape hatch but is already captured by the schema default. There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_service for a single item, or on pagination workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.