list_articlesFetch product/service articles from Fortnox with prices and stock, filter by active status or description, and limit rows returned.
Article (product/service) register with prices and stock.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000) | |
| filter | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only an entity definition, no behavioral context such as filtering semantics, default paging behavior, or whether inactive records are included by default.
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 short sentence is efficient and front-loaded, with no filler. But it is terse to the point of under-specification, so it earns only a middle score for structure.
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 list tool with three parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should clarify the return shape, filter behavior, and the undocumented parameters. It supplies none of these, leaving the agent guessing about how articles are filtered and returned.
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 only 33%: max is documented in the schema, but filter (enum active/inactive) and description have no schema descriptions. The description text does not compensate, giving no meaning for what 'description' filters on or what 'active' means for an article.
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 names the resource and clarifies its domain meaning (articles are products/services with prices and stock), which is genuinely more informative than the bare name. However, it states no verb and never says the tool lists or retrieves them, nor does it differentiate from the many sibling list_* tools. The purpose is inferable but vague.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_orders or list_suppliers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.