Retrieve software license records from your asset management database, with options to filter by search, company, or category and control pagination for targeted results.
List software licenses
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| company_id | No | ||
| category_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention pagination, default ordering, whether associated seats or company/category details are included, or any other behavioral nuance.
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 a single, clutter-free sentence with the purpose front-loaded. It is concise, though it achieves that conciseness by omitting useful usage and behavioral context.
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 list tool with seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. An agent gets no information about filtering, pagination semantics, response shape, or how this list relates to the other license tools.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the seven parameters. While names like sort, limit, and search are somewhat self-explanatory, the description itself contributes nothing beyond the schema field names.
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?
'List software licenses' clearly states a verb and resource, and the collection-oriented wording distinguishes it from licenses_get and licenses_seats. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as licenses_get or licenses_seats. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.