Lists customer tenants observed from an integration UUID, enabling you to identify which clients are connected to a given integration.
List customer tenants observed from an integration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based). Defaults to 1. | |
| page_size | No | Items per page (max 100). Defaults to 10. | |
| tenant_uuid | No | ||
| integration_uuid | Yes | Integration UUID, from cork_get_connected_integrations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'observed from an integration' adds data-source context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, or what 'observed' means operationally, though these are less critical for a simple listing tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action, the returned resource, and the source context.
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?
The required integration_uuid dependency is clear enough to make a basic call, but the optional tenant_uuid filter is unexplained and there is no output schema to indicate what tenant fields are returned. For a list tool with four parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful 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?
The schema describes page, page_size, and integration_uuid, but tenant_uuid has no description and the tool description adds no clarification. The phrase 'from an integration' is largely redundant with the schema's integration_uuid description, leaving one parameter semantically unexplained.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List customer tenants observed from an integration.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cork_get_integration_users and cork_get_integration_devices by focusing on tenant-level data sourced from an integration.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative getter tools. The description states only what the tool does, with no mention of when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or related integrations such as cork_get_connected_integrations or cork_get_integration_users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.