list_servicesLists 12 fixed-price project tiers with prices and delivery days plus 3 paid consultations available through Upwork, enabling quick service selection.
Published offers with prices in USD: 12 fixed-price projects (3 tiers each, with delivery days and what is included) and 3 paid consultations. All are bought through his Upwork profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context not in the annotations: the result is a static published catalog of 12 projects × 3 tiers plus 3 consultations, priced in USD, and that acquisition happens externally through Upwork rather than through this tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and currency, followed by the concrete breakdown of what is offered. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description does much of the return-value work by enumerating the catalog composition and pricing currency, which is enough to set expectations. It stops short of describing actual field names or ordering, a minor gap for a static list 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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument full-catalog call rather than implying filtering options.
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 the specific resource and its contents precisely: published offers with USD prices, 12 fixed-price projects with 3 tiers each (including delivery days and inclusions), plus 3 paid consultations. This is clearly a catalog/service-listing tool and is distinguishable from siblings like list_case_studies or get_profile.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the pricing/catalog lookup, and the closing sentence notes purchases happen via his Upwork profile, hinting that this is not a purchase tool. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus how_to_hire or check_availability, nor any exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.