Retrieve all correspondents (document senders or receivers) with optional filtering and pagination.
List all correspondents with optional filtering and pagination. Correspondents represent entities that send or receive documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| name__iexact | No | ||
| name__icontains | No | ||
| name__iendswith | No | ||
| name__istartswith | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about safety, permissions, rate limits, pagination defaults, or what the response 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?
Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a brief clarifying definition.
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 7-parameter list endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations, pagination behavior, filtering syntax, and return format details.
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 schema has 7 parameters at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely refers to 'filtering and pagination' without naming or explaining any of the specific name filters, ordering, page, or page_size parameters.
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 ('List') and resource ('correspondents'), and adds a definition of what correspondents are. It implicitly distinguishes from single-item siblings like get_correspondent, but does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.
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?
Mentions optional filtering and pagination, which hints at capabilities, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_correspondent or other list tools, nor any conditions or prerequisites for filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.