list_cost_centresList cost centres from a Timesheet Portal account, returning each centre's code and description. Filter by cost centre code to find a specific one.
Cost centres (GET /costcentres): code and description (contact details typed into a description are redacted). Filter sent as documented: Code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost_centre_code | No | Only this cost centre (sent as Code) |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: contact details typed into a description are redacted. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or ordering, which is the main remaining gap.
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 with the resource and endpoint front-loaded. It is dense and slightly telegraphic ('Filter sent as documented: Code'), but nothing is wasted and it reads quickly.
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 names the returned fields (code, description) and flags redaction of contact details, which compensates for the missing return schema. For a one-param list tool it is nearly complete, though it omits any note on result size or pagination.
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 100% with a single optional parameter, so the schema already documents cost_centre_code as 'Only this cost centre (sent as Code)'. The description's 'Filter sent as documented: Code' largely restates the schema and adds no syntax or matching-semantics detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource (cost centres) and the backing endpoint GET /costcentres, plus the fields returned (code, description). The listing verb is carried by the tool name rather than the description, but the purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like list_projects or list_clients.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The one-param filter is mentioned but the description never says when an agent should reach for this tool versus another list_* sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.