List locations connected to an owned application, filtered by partner and application IDs, with bounded pagination.
List locations connected to an owned application, with bounded pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| partner_id | Yes | Developer account ID used for caller ownership checks | |
| application_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The only added trait, 'bounded pagination', is essentially a restatement of the count maximum=1000 constraint already in the schema, and it does not explain page/count interaction or what 'locations' records contain.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting information the agent needs rather than by tight editing.
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 required-4-param, mutating-free but ownership-checked query with no output schema and 25% parameter coverage, the description omits prerequisites (partner_id ownership check is in the schema, not the description), pagination semantics, and return content. An agent could construct a call but would be guessing about scope and results.
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 25% (only partner_id is documented), so the description carries the burden of explaining page, count and application_id semantics. It says nothing about any of them, and 'bounded pagination' is too vague to compensate for the undocumented page/count 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 gives a concrete verb ('List') and a resource ('locations connected to an owned application'), but it uses 'locations' while the tool name says 'installations', leaving the agent to guess whether these are the same concept. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools (list_applications, list_developer_accounts, list_offers).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this rather than marketplace_get_installation_status, marketplace_list_applications, or the backoffice list tools. The 'owned application' qualifier hints at a scope condition but it is never stated as a routing rule or prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.