Retrieve a filtered list of DealDesk cases by stage, type, owner, or project to track and manage support requests.
List DealDesk cases with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| stage | No | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. | |
| ownerUserId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / projectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "projectId"
-]New value: +[]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, result size, read-only nature, rate limits, or how the projectId authorization nuance affects behavior. The projectId schema hint is the only auth-related context, and the description does not reinforce or extend it.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and resource and contains no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for what it chooses to say, though the brevity leaves the definition under-specified for its six-parameter surface.
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 six-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits filter semantics, pagination behavior, default limits, and the multi-project authorization context that the projectId parameter hints at.
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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. Instead it says only 'optional filters,' which does not explain what q, type, stage, limit, or ownerUserId actually filter on, nor their accepted values or mutual behavior.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('DealDesk cases'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_case, create_case, patch_case, and the other list_* resources by noun. However, it does not differentiate itself from the other list tools beyond the resource name and adds no routing guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions under which this list tool is preferable to get_case or the other list_* tools. It merely notes that filters are optional, which is already apparent from the schema having no required parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.