list_trigger_action_buttonsLists trigger-type action buttons, optionally filtered by CRM card type (Contact, ContactPerson, or Deal), to help identify available actions for a record.
List Trigger Action Buttons.
Returns all trigger-type action buttons with optional filtering by card type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dynamicDbTableName | No | Filter by card type. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope constraint that only trigger-type buttons are returned, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume despite openWorldHint suggesting a potentially large external dataset.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence partially restates the title, but the scope clarification ("trigger-type") and filter note earn their place.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain return fields. However, it omits pagination behavior and whether omitting the filter returns all card types, which an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 parameter has an enum, so the schema fully documents the filter. The description's "optional filtering by card type" merely restates that, adding no format, default, or behavior detail (e.g., what is returned when the filter is omitted).
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 uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("trigger-type action buttons") and narrows scope to trigger-type buttons, which separates it from execution-oriented siblings like list_action_button_executions. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_action_button_executions or list_cards, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage hint is that the card-type filter is optional, which is implied by the schema rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.