Retrieve and filter estimates by page, search term, or customer ID to review quotes and track pending sales in a self-hosted invoicing system.
List estimates, with optional pagination, search and customer filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| customer_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 behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'List' implies read-only, but there is no mention of pagination defaults, maximum limits, result ordering, or whether pagination is applied when omitted — all material for a listing endpoint.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and the filter scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to earn a top score given the tool's parameter surface.
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?
No output schema, so the description could reasonably say what the listing returns, and no annotations, so it could state the read-only/safety profile. For a simple 4-param list endpoint the coverage is minimally adequate, but pagination and return shape are left open.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It roughly maps to all four parameters — pagination (page/limit), search, and customer filters — which is the minimum needed, but gives no formats, defaults, or matching semantics, so the agent still guesses at values.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('estimates'), and names the filter categories, which cleanly separates it from the singular get_estimate sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting alternatives, but the purpose itself 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?
The only usage signal is that filters are 'optional' — there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_estimate, get_estimates-by-customer, or the search-style siblings, and no exclusions. An agent can infer this is the browse path, but nothing is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.