List tracked items or products, using optional status or category filters to quickly find specific entries.
List tracked items/products, optionally filtered by status or category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| categoryId | No | Filter by category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' accurately implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose default behavior, ordering, pagination, or whether all statuses are returned when no filter is applied. It is correct but minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the core operation and optional filters efficiently.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient for a correct call. It does not describe the output shape, but the verb 'List' implies a collection, and no output schema exists to define it further.
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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description only repeats the idea of filtering by status or category and adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List tracked items/products', and notes the optional status/category filters. This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_item, update_item, delete_item, and list_item_categories.
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 implies when to use this tool by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as list_item_categories or explain when to prefer list_items over other list_* tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.