Identify available Housecall Pro customer links and document kinds, such as estimates and invoices, to know what you can view while keeping credentials private.
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a critical boundary: 'retrieval tokens are credentials and are never returned.' It also clarifies that only 'labels and document kinds' are exposed, giving the agent a concrete expectation of what the response will and will not contain. This materially reduces the risk of misuse.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second sentence adds a valuable security-relevant constraint. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully equips the agent: it states what is listed, what the output consists of, and what will never be returned. No missing information is needed to call the tool correctly.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing to document. The description's focus on output scope rather than inputs is appropriate for a parameterless tool, meeting the baseline for this dimension.
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'), a specific resource ('Housecall Pro customer links'), and a precise scope ('this server is configured with'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools, which target estimates, invoices, company info, or health checks, so an agent can differentiate it without opening any schema.
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 description makes the usage context clear: call this tool when you need to see which Housecall Pro customer links are configured. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but none of the siblings perform link listing, so the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.