Retrieve existing installment plans to review pagination and plan summaries returned by the Malipo API.
List existing installment plans. Use this to see how pagination and plan summaries are returned by the Malipo API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Starting index for pagination (sent as query parameter). | |
| limit | No | Number of plans to return per page (sent as query parameter). | |
| address | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / from / defaultRemoved value: -0Input schema / properties / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"Starting index for pagination."New value: +"Starting index for pagination (sent as query parameter)."Input schema / properties / limit / defaultRemoved value: -20Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of plans to return per page."New value: +"Number of plans to return per page (sent as query parameter)."v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is a read ('list existing') and that pagination and plan summaries are returned, which is genuine return-format context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or empty-result behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat idiosyncratic but not wasteful.
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 output schema, the description should characterize the response, and it only vaguely gestures at 'pagination and plan summaries.' Combined with no annotations and one undocumented parameter, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps.
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 67%: 'from' and 'limit' are documented in the schema, but 'address' has no description anywhere. The prose adds no meaning to any parameter, so the one undocumented field remains opaque.
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 specific verb and resource ('List existing installment plans'), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular get_installment_plan and create/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable.
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 second sentence ('Use this to see how pagination and plan summaries are returned') is a meta-note about API exploration rather than a when-to-use-vs-alternatives rule. No conditions or exclusions relative to get_installment_plan or the other listing/retrieval siblings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.