Retrieve all payment terms from inFlow Inventory to review, sort, and paginate them for billing or purchasing workflows.
List all payment terms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| sort | No | Property to sort by (e.g., name) | |
| count | No | ||
| sortDesc | No | Sort in descending order | |
| includeCount | No | Include total record count in response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination behavior (skip/count exist), default result size, sort defaults, permissions, or response shape. It only restates the operation.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise for a five-parameter listing tool.
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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, partial schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without paging behavior, default limits, or result structure. It is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.
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?
With 60% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description adds zero meaning: skip and count have no schema description either, and the description does not explain paging, sort semantics, or the includeCount flag. The schema itself is partially documented, so the description should have compensated and does not.
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 (payment terms), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. There is no competing sibling on this topic, so sibling differentiation is not needed, but nothing beyond the bare action is conveyed.
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 description gives no context on when to use this tool, whether pagination or sorting is expected, or how it relates to any other payment-term operation. No when-to-use or exclusion guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.