wave_list_businessesLists Wave businesses available to the current credential, with pagination and an archived/active filter.
List the Wave businesses this credential can access (paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based; use nextPage | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (max 50) | |
| isArchived | No | true = only archived, false = only active, omit = both |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds two facts beyond that: results are paginated and scoped to the credential's accessible businesses. It does not say whether archived businesses appear by default or what a business record contains.
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 sentence with no filler; scope and pagination are both front-loaded. Nothing in it could be removed without losing 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?
For a zero-required-parameter list tool with rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The one remaining gap is that the default inclusion of archived businesses is only discoverable by reading the isArchived schema entry, not the description itself.
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 all three parameters (page, pageSize, isArchived) carry their own inline descriptions, including the default-both behavior for isArchived. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("List the Wave businesses") and adds the scope constraint that results are limited to what the credential can access. It does not name the sibling wave_get_business or explain the list-vs-get relationship, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: the credential-scoped listing suggests this is the entry point for discovering business IDs before calling wave_get_business, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. No alternative tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.