Retrieve all taxing schemes from inFlow Inventory to review tax configurations, with options to sort, paginate, and include related data or total counts.
List all taxing schemes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| sort | No | Property to sort by (e.g., name) | |
| count | No | ||
| include | No | Related data to include | |
| 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?
With no annotations and only six words, the description carries the full burden but provides nothing: no safety profile, no pagination, no response format, no rate limits, and no mention that this is a read-only operation. It is completely silent on all 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?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loads the action. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise – the brevity leaves gaps that could be filled without sacrificing clarity.
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 tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain defaults, pagination behavior, or what data is returned, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.
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 coverage is 67%, and the schema descriptions for sort, include, sortDesc, and includeCount provide meaning. The description adds no parameter information, but with moderate schema coverage the baseline is 3. It could be improved by explaining the pagination parameters (skip, count).
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('taxing schemes'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling upsert_taxing_scheme (write) and set_taxing_scheme (set). It does not differentiate from other list_* tools, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it only retrieves schemes and should not be used to create/update, nor does it suggest when to choose list_taxing_schemes over list_tax_codes or other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.