Retrieve sales quotes from a Lightspeed Retail store with cursor-based paging using the after parameter and a configurable limit for paginated quote review.
Quotes (sales:read), cursor paged with after.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the required `sales:read` scope and cursor pagination via `after`, though it omits return format, pagination limits, and whether results are all quotes or filtered by some implicit scope.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it delivers the auth scope and pagination note immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, and annotations cover safety semantics, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a two-parameter list tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally complete: it explains `after` but not `limit`, and gives no usage context.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `after` as a cursor for pagination, but says nothing about `limit`, its default of 100, or any bounds, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.
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 identifies the resource (quotes) and notes an auth scope (`sales:read`), but the verb is only implied by the tool name and the description does not explicitly state scope like all quotes or filtered quotes. There are no quote-related siblings, so sibling differentiation is less critical, but purpose remains only adequately clear.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It only conveys an auth scope and pagination style, which does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus other list/search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.