Retrieve all phases associated with a specific project in Autotask. Provide the project ID to get a paginated list of project phases.
List phases for a project in Autotask
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Results per page (default: 25, max: 100) | |
| projectID | Yes | Project ID to list phases for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'list,' implying a read operation, but fails to mention pagination behavior, result limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks any structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for agents. Still, it is efficiently front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description should at least mention that it returns a list of phases. Without this or any behavioral context, the description is incomplete. The missing output schema amplifies the need for description completeness.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (projectID, pageSize). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists phases for a project in Autotask. The verb 'list' and resource 'phases' with qualifier 'for a project' unambiguously defines the tool's purpose. No sibling tool duplicates this function.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a projectID from another tool) or when not to use it. The description solely states the operation without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.