Search PaymentMethod records by Name (LIKE match).
Search PaymentMethod records by Name (LIKE match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Search term matched against Name with LIKE '%term%'. '%' is a wildcard; QBO does not support an ESCAPE clause. | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| startPosition | No | Starting position for pagination (1-based, default: 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.6Input schema / properties / term / descriptionPrevious value: -"Search term matched against Name with LIKE '%term%'"New value: +"Search term matched against Name with LIKE '%term%'. '%' is a wildcard; QBO does not support an ESCAPE clause."v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: it never confirms the operation is read-only, never mentions pagination behavior despite two paging parameters, and gives no rate-limit or auth context. The LIKE-match semantics it does state are already spelled out in the schema.
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?
A single twelve-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 three-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the essentials are present, but the definition omits the search-vs-list decision and, with no output schema, says nothing about what a match result contains. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, with term's LIKE '%term%' semantics, the wildcard rule, and the no-ESCAPE limitation all documented in the schema itself. The description's 'LIKE match' phrase adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters 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?
States a specific verb (Search), resource (PaymentMethod records), and matching mode (Name, LIKE match), so the agent can distinguish it from the get/create/update siblings. It does not, however, distinguish it from the closely parallel qbo_payment_methods_list, leaving the search-vs-list choice unaddressed.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the qbo_payment_methods_list alternative, and no stated prerequisites. The LIKE-by-Name hint implies a use case but never tells the agent when this tool is preferred over listing all payment methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.