list_supporter_fieldsRetrieve the supporter fields defined in an account, including each field's name, tag, and standard property, to map and reference supporter data.
The supporter fields defined in the account's data structure: each field's name (as used in supporter records), tag and standard property name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result reflects the account's configured data structure, which hints at account-scoped output, but says nothing about ordering, caching, or whether custom vs standard fields are included. Modest added value over annotations.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned attributes. No filler or redundancy, though the missing verb makes the opening feel like a fragment rather than a directive.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned properties (name, tag, standard property name) usefully compensates for that gap. However, it omits usage context relative to its many sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess when this list is the right choice.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-schema read with no filtering options to document.
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 names a specific resource (supporter fields in the account's data structure) and enumerates what each entry contains, which distinguishes it from sibling list_supporter_questions. However it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it reads as a description of a data entity rather than stating the tool's action (listing). Adequate but not fully self-evident as an operation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling listers (list_supporter_questions, query_supporters, etc.) or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns field metadata for the account's supporter schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.