list_departmentsFetch customer departments from Atera RMM/PSA with pagination and optional full details for browsing, reporting, or selecting departments.
Customer departments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return every field of each item instead of a summary (much larger output) | |
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1 (default 1) | |
| itemsInPage | No | Items per page (default 20, max 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of pagination behavior, the large-output tradeoff of `full`, or result ordering/scope.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise – a two-word fragment that omits any verb or useful framing.
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 and a purely noun-phrase description, an agent gets no sense of what a department record contains, how results are paged, or how this relates to get_department. The definition is too sparse for a tool in a large multi-entity API surface.
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 100% and each of the three parameters has a clear inline description, so the schema carries the burden. The description contributes nothing extra (e.g., default page size context or when to use `full`), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
"Customer departments." is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name/title without adding a verb or scope. It doesn't distinguish this list tool from the sibling get_department or explain what a "customer department" is.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus get_department or the other list_* tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this enumerates departments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.