Lists configured Housecall Pro customer links by label and document kind, so you can see available estimates or invoices without exposing retrieval credentials.
List the Housecall Pro customer links this server is configured with. Labels and document kinds only — retrieval tokens are credentials and are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the result (labels and document kinds only) and a security constraint (retrieval tokens are credentials and never returned). No permission or rate-limit details, but solid added context.
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, purpose front-loaded, with the second sentence carrying the only extra payload (result scope and credential exclusion). No filler.
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 usefully characterizes the return content (labels and document kinds) and reassures that secrets are withheld. Complete enough for a zero-param read tool, though it could note ordering or emptiness behavior.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly reflects a no-argument tool.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('Housecall Pro customer links this server is configured with'), making it clearly distinguishable from the get_*/estimate-action siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can identify its role.
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 implied — you call it to discover which links the server is configured with — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion relative to the sibling tools. Adequate but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.