buildium_list_tenantsList rental tenants with limit and offset pagination. Set all_pages to gather every record for counting or aggregating tenant data.
List rental tenants.
Set all_pages=true when counting or aggregating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| all_pages | No | ||
| exclude_fixtures | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a pagination-related hint about all_pages, but discloses no further behavioral details such as response shape or fixture-exclusion semantics, so the added value is modest.
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 two short sentences with the core purpose first and the key pagination caveat separated into its own line. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.
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?
A default call is easy to make since all five parameters are optional and annotations plus output schema cover safety and return values. However, the description leaves several parameter semantics unexplained, notably exclude_fixtures and fields, so it is not fully complete for a 5-parameter tool.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description compensates for only all_pages ('Set all_pages=true when counting or aggregating'). The meaning of limit, offset, fields, and especially exclude_fixtures is left undocumented, so an agent must guess at their semantics.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List rental tenants.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from listing leases or GL accounts, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling buildium_list_rentals/buildium_list_units tools.
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 all_pages instruction gives explicit situational guidance for counting or aggregating, which is useful. However, the description never says when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as buildium_list_rentals, leaving tool selection to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.