List shipped DealDesk sales skills packaged with the plugin and return authorized project IDs; provide a project ID when several are authorized.
List shipped DealDesk sales skills packaged with dealdesk-plugin. Returns authorizedProjectIds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait — the return payload is auth-scoped project ids ('Returns authorizedProjectIds') — but never states that this is a side-effect-free read or mentions any constraints on invocation.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose first, return value second; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of being thin, but every clause carries information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, and it does so only partially — 'Returns authorizedProjectIds' does not explain the shape or contents of the skills list itself, which is the tool's primary output. Adequate for a one-parameter list tool, but leaves a real gap.
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% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omission rule. The description's mention of authorizedProjectIds weakly reinforces the authorization semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('shipped DealDesk sales skills packaged with dealdesk-plugin'), which clearly distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings that cover projects, cards, companies, and quotes. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, 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?
No statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The one hint of usage context ('Omit when the OAuth token... authorizes exactly one project') lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.