List agents and teams available for scheduling, with optional filters by resource type or TQL criteria to find the right resources for an appointment.
List all resources (agents and teams) available for scheduling
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by resource type | |
| filter | No | TQL filter string (e.g., "active:true") | |
| pageSize | No | Number of results per page (default: 50, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'list all resources' without mentioning pagination, default page size, filtering via TQL, or the response structure. An agent has no idea whether results are sorted, truncated, or how to handle large result sets.
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 concise sentence with no fluff, clearly front-loading the action. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation, though it lacks some contextual details that would improve usability.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return format, pagination behavior, and usage scenarios. It does none of this. For a tool with three optional parameters and a list operation, this is severely under-specified.
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%, so all three parameters (type, filter, pageSize) are already documented with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (all resources: agents and teams) and its context (for scheduling). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling agents_list and teams_list by covering both types in a single call, so an agent can infer its scope without opening the schema.
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 does not state when to prefer this tool over the more specific agents_list or teams_list, nor does it mention optional filters or pagination. Usage context is only implied by the name and the phrase 'available for scheduling', leaving the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.