Retrieves SPM demands from the intake pipeline to track requests feeding projects. Use encoded query, fields, and limit to filter and customize results.
List SPM demands (dmn_demand) — the intake pipeline that feeds projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 20) | |
| query | No | Optional encoded query (e.g. stateIN1,2) | |
| fields | No | Comma-separated fields to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context that demands are an intake pipeline, but says nothing about pagination, default result size, ordering, or permission requirements beyond what the schema and annotations provide.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the resource, table name, and conceptual role are stated immediately. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the guidance an agent would benefit from.
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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but thin. It does not describe what a demand record contains or how results are returned, though annotations and schema cover safety and inputs.
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 three fully documented optional parameters (limit, query, fields), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning about how the 'query' encoding or 'fields' projection behaves, making the baseline 3 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?
The description names a clear verb and resource ('List SPM demands (dmn_demand)') and even includes the underlying table name, so an agent knows exactly what entity is being listed. The clarifying clause 'the intake pipeline that feeds projects' distinguishes it conceptually from siblings like list_programs or list_portfolios, though it never explicitly contrasts with create_demand or other demand-related tools.
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 and no alternatives named. The phrase 'the intake pipeline that feeds projects' hints at conceptual context but does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus list_projects, list_portfolios, or create_demand.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.