Search or list customer-directory companies to find and retrieve company records for DealDesk projects. Filter by query and limit results.
Search or list customer-directory companies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| projectId | No | DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects. |
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, default/max result counts, sort order, whether 'q' matches name vs domain, or the shape of the result. For a search/list endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 with no wasted clauses, which is well front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter tool, so concision here shades into under-specification.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented, the description would need to compensate and does not. An agent cannot tell result count, paging behavior, or search semantics before invoking.
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 33% – only projectId is documented in the schema, while q and limit have no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning about what q searches or what limit defaults to, so the undocumented parameters are left entirely to guesswork.
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?
States a recognizable verb+resource (search/list companies) and scopes it to the 'customer-directory', which loosely separates it from sibling list tools like list_contacts or list_projects. However it never names the distinguishing sibling (get_company for a single company) and 'Search or list' leaves the duality of the operation unresolved.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_company or create_company. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the right tool for a lookup versus a directory enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.