Lists people and groups who can receive a file in the ENT locker, with optional name filtering. Use it to pick valid recipients before depositing a file.
Personnes et groupes à qui vous pouvez déposer un fichier dans le casier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recherche | No | Filtre sur le nom (facultatif). |
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=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context that these are recipients eligible for file deposit, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or other operational behavior beyond what the annotations provide.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the core resource definition. However, as a sentence fragment it lacks a clear action structure, which slightly weakens its usefulness.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional filter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the annotations and schema cover safety and filtering. The main gap is that it never explicitly states the tool returns a list, leaving the agent to infer the action from the name and 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 100% and there is only one optional parameter ('recherche'), which the schema fully documents as a name filter. The description does not mention or add meaning to this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.
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 domain (people and groups eligible to receive a file in the casier), but it is a noun phrase without an action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. It partially distinguishes from siblings like casier_deposer, but does not clearly state that this tool returns recipients.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as casier_deposer or casier_lister. The phrase 'à qui vous pouvez déposer un fichier' implies a context, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.