Get all companies assigned to the current user, providing the necessary context to select and manage eTalent processes within Evaluar.
List all companies available to the current user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait — results are scoped to the current user — and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention authentication prerequisites, pagination, ordering, or response format, but for a zero-parameter list operation the core behavior is adequately conveyed.
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?
An eight-word sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 simple zero-input, zero-annotation listing tool, the description states the essential purpose and scope. Minor gaps remain: no output schema means the return shape is undocumented, and the auth prerequisite is only implied by 'current user' and the auth_* siblings. These are small concerns for such a trivial tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('companies'), and a scope ('available to the current user'). It is immediately distinguishable from its closest sibling, company_select, which describes a selection operation rather than a listing.
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?
The usage context is implied by the plain meaning of the verb and resource, and the sibling set (auth_login, auth_refresh, company_select) hints at an authentication-then-list-then-select workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus company_select, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.