whmcs_get_client_productsRetrieve a client's products and services from WHMCS, with optional filters for product ID, domain, service ID, and result pagination.
Get products/services owned by a client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | No | Filter by product ID | |
| domain | No | Filter by domain | |
| clientid | No | The client ID | |
| limitnum | No | Number of results | |
| serviceid | No | Specific service ID | |
| limitstart | No | Starting offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not disclose pagination (despite limitstart/limitnum parameters), authentication requirements, or data freshness, leaving the agent without essential operational context.
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 wasted words. It is concise but might be too brief for full clarity, earning a 4 rather than 5.
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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide complete context. It omits pagination behavior, result structure, and any boundaries, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.
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% with each parameter described, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.
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 clearly states 'Get products/services owned by a client', which identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like whmcs_get_orders or whmcs_get_clients by focusing on client-owned products/services, but could be more specific about the types of products.
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. The description does not provide context on prerequisites, limitations, or when to prefer other tools like whmcs_get_orders for order-level data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.