list_my_offersLists offers sent to Trood as a partner, showing review status, link availability, and whether the company opened or started each offer.
The offers this person sent to Trood as a partner: whether Trood is checking it, declined it, or created the link, and whether the company opened or started it. Shows the link once it exists. Never shows what the company told Trood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the result set is scoped to offers this person sent as a partner, the link appears only once it exists, and company-side communications are deliberately excluded — all useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being listed. The status enumeration is a slightly tangled clause ('whether Trood is checking it, declined it, or created the link, and whether the company opened or started it'), but no sentence is filler.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains which offers appear, which statuses are surfaced, that the link is included once it exists, and what is intentionally hidden. That is enough for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not need to explain input syntax because there is none.
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 the specific resource and scope: the offers this person sent to Trood as a partner, and enumerates the statuses that are visible. It is clear what the tool returns, though the verb ('list') is only implied by the name and the sentence is slightly roundabout rather than a crisp 'Lists X'.
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?
Usage is implied — an agent can infer it is for checking the status of offers already sent — but no sibling is named (draft_offer, publish_offer, decline_offer, show_my_trood_data) and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. The 'Never shows what the company told Trood' line is a boundary, not a routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.