List service catalog items, optionally filtered by category and limited in count, to view available offerings.
List available service catalog items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items (default: 20) | |
| category | No | Filter by category name or sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safe read-only nature. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'available' items but discloses no additional behavioral details like pagination or ordering, which is acceptable given the simple list operation.
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, succinct sentence that conveys the core function without any filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It conveys the list behavior and scope ('available'), while safety is covered by annotations. It does not explicitly mention filtering options, but they are present in the schema, making the overall tool definition complete enough.
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 clear descriptions for limit and category, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no extra insight into parameter usage or relationships.
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 the tool lists available service catalog items, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_catalog_item (single item) and create/update/order, but does not explicitly reference alternatives like search_catalog.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_catalog_item or search_catalog. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.