Fetch a project's Portfolio draft or published summary for CPQ reporting; pass projectId when multiple projects are authorized.
Get Portfolio draft/published summary for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, what distinguishes draft from published results, or whether the summary is computed or cached — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 filler, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. However, the brevity veers into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description. For a summary-retrieval tool the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how draft vs published differs; it does not.
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 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema, but locale has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — no locale format, no explanation of the draft/published toggle that a caller would need to interpret results. It fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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 verb 'Get' and a resource 'Portfolio draft/published summary for a project', which is more than a tautology. However, it never clarifies what a 'draft/published summary' actually contains, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling dealdesk.portfolio_evaluate, leaving ambiguity about the tool's scope.
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 indication of when to call this instead of portfolio_evaluate or the various get_*_summary siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers mentioned anywhere in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.