Lists the companies you have granted OAuth access to, so you can select the right Fiken organization before reading accounting data or drafting postings.
List foretak brukeren har gitt OAuth-tilgang til.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioural fact not in the annotations: results are restricted to companies the user has authorized via OAuth. It says nothing about pagination behaviour or result size, which matters for a paged list endpoint.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the sentence could carry the paging and discovery-role information at almost no cost.
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 root-level discovery tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what a company record contains (e.g. name and the identifier required by sibling tools) and how paging works. Neither is present, so an agent cannot tell what it will receive or how to iterate.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters ('page', 'page_size') or their defaults. The schema titles and defaults give minimal hints, but the description does no compensating work on paging semantics or maximum page size.
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 gives a specific verb (list) plus a scoped resource: the companies ('foretak') the user has granted OAuth access to. That scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on a single company (fiken_get_company) or on sub-resources, although no sibling is named explicitly. The only friction is that the description is in Norwegian while the tool name and schema are in English.
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: listing accessible companies is obviously a discovery step, but the description never says 'call this first to obtain the company identifiers the other tools need', nor does it name any alternative or exclusion. An agent must infer the prerequisite role from the OAuth-scoping phrase alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.