Retrieve all pricing schemes and price levels to manage product pricing in inFlow Inventory.
List all pricing schemes/price levels
| 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 says nothing about pagination defaults, permissions, or what fields a scheme contains. Apart from implying a read-only listing, it discloses no behavioral traits.
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 with no filler, front-loaded with the operation. It is efficient, though the brevity is in part under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no help on result shape, paging semantics, or typical usage.
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 60%, leaving 'skip' and 'count' undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It neither names the paging parameters nor explains sort/includeCount behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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 clear verb+resource ('List all pricing schemes/price levels'), which is an unambiguous read operation over a specific entity. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent list tools such as list_taxing_schemes or list_tax_codes, but the resource noun is distinct enough.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or scope conditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.