Retrieve Brivo custom fields with pagination controls to inspect account metadata. Use offset and pageSize to browse fields for reporting or configuration checks.
List all Brivo custom fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | Yes | Skip the first N results. Default: 0. | |
| pageSize | Yes | Max results to return. Default: 20. Max: 100. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior, result ordering, or the fact that offset/pageSize are required despite having defaults.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than tight writing.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits pagination/ordering expectations and any mention of what a custom field object contains, which would help an agent plan follow-up calls.
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 both parameters document their defaults and max, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 clear verb (List) and resource (Brivo custom fields), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate from the sibling Get_custom_field or List_user_custom_fields, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus Get_custom_field for a single field, or versus List_user_custom_fields for user-scoped values. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.