Retrieve all tax codes from inFlow Inventory to review or select applicable taxes for products, orders, and transactions.
List all tax codes
| 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. It says 'List all tax codes,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether 'all' ignores the skip/count parameters.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted wording and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with five optional parameters and offers no structural cues about filtering, sorting, or pagination.
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?
Given five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It provides only the basic purpose and omits parameter semantics, pagination behavior, sorting behavior, and how this tool relates to taxing schemes.
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 input schema has five parameters with only 60% description coverage. The description does not mention skip, count, sort, sortDesc, or includeCount, and adds no meaning beyond the schema. Because schema coverage is below 80%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters but 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all tax codes.' It is clear what operation is performed, but it does not distinguish this tool from related sibling tools such as list_taxing_schemes or upsert_taxing_scheme, nor does it explain the relationship between tax codes and taxing schemes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_taxing_schemes, any prerequisites, or when listing tax codes is appropriate. The only implied usage is the generic action of listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.