Retrieve marketing sources for specified organization IDs. Get a reference directory of marketing sources to use in iikoCloud operations.
Справочник источников маркетинга организаций. Где взять ID: organizationIds → organizations__get_organizations. Троттлинг MCP-сервера (не лимит iikoCloud): не чаще 1 запрос(ов) за 60 с — кэшируйте результат в диалоге.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the MCP-server rate limit (1 request per 60 seconds) and advising to cache the result in the dialogue.
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 two short sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second provides the parameter source and a critical caching/rate-limit note. Everything present earns its place.
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, read-only, one-parameter lookup, the description covers the essential operational details: what the tool returns at a high level, where to get the required ID, and how to respect throttling. It does not describe the expected return shape, but given the low complexity and annotation-covered safety profile, this is a minor gap.
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?
The description adds a practical pointer for populating organizationIds by naming organizations__get_organizations, which helps the agent source the value. However, it does not explain the request wrapper, the array semantics, or the UUID constraint beyond what the schema itself already states, and schema description coverage is reported as 0%.
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 identifies the resource (organizations' marketing sources) and the organizational scope, and the tool name supplies the get/list verb. It is clear enough to distinguish from the many sibling tools, though the description itself uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.
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 gives actionable context: it tells the agent how to obtain organizationIds via organizations__get_organizations and warns about MCP-server throttling with a caching recommendation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over an alternative, but no closely competing sibling tool exists, so the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.