marketsharp-mcp

marketsharp_appointment_results_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a company's active appointment results, such as Sold or No Sale, and can return the available result reasons instead.

Instructions

List the company's active appointment results (e.g. Sold, No Sale), or the result reasons.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "marketsharp_appointment_results_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reasons`	No	List result reasons instead of results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that: only 'active' results are returned, which matters for the agent's expectations. It says nothing else about ordering, completeness, or whether archived/inactive values are retrievable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with the primary mode stated first and the secondary mode appended, with a parenthetical example that anchors meaning immediately. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one optional boolean, no output schema), and the description plus annotations plus schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it. A brief note on what fields come back per result (id vs label) would have closed the last gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'reasons' boolean is documented in the schema as 'List result reasons instead of results.' The description reinforces this by mentioning result reasons as the alternate mode, so it is consistent but adds no detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the company's active appointment results') and gives concrete examples (Sold, No Sale), so an agent knows it returns a reference/lookup set of result values. It does not differentiate itself from other list tools in the sibling set beyond the resource name, which keeps it out of the top band.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: it is clearly a reference-data lookup for appointment outcome values, and the dual mode (results vs reasons) is hinted at. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus a sibling list such as marketsharp_appointments_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.