Find technician assignments on service call tickets by filtering by technician or ticket ID.
Search for resource (technician) assignments on service call tickets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Number of results to return (default: 25) | |
| resourceId | No | Filter by resource (technician) ID | |
| serviceCallTicketId | No | Filter by service call ticket ID |
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 should disclose that this is a read-only search operation, but it only says 'search'. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, pagination behavior, or what happens with no results.
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, efficient sentence. It could include more context without becoming verbose, but it is not padded with unnecessary words.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description should explain the return format, pagination (pageSize), and how filters combine. It lacks these details, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure.
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 parameter descriptions, so the description adds little beyond repeating 'resource (technician)' which is already in the schema. It does clarify that the tool returns 'assignments', but for a search tool, the return type is obvious.
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 it searches for resource (technician) assignments on service call tickets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_service_calls or search_service_call_tickets. However, it could explicitly contrast with tools that retrieve resource details or tickets.
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 description implies usage for finding technician assignments but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using get_service_call for a single service call's resources or search_resources for technician details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.