Get all available products for your tenant with pricing, trial days, and license duration details to inform licensing management decisions.
List all products for the current tenant. Returns product details including name, price, trial days, and license duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a non-mutating list operation and names the returned fields, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or error behavior.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope come first, followed by the useful return-field summary.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential details: operation, tenant scope, and the returned product fields. It omits minor operational details like pagination, but nothing critical is missing for a simple list call.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter behavior to document. The description adds relevant implicit scoping via 'current tenant' without needing to explain parameters.
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 clearly identifies the operation as listing products and scopes it to the current tenant. The resource noun 'products' visibly distinguishes it from the sibling license-related tools like list_licenses.
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 the use case through the verb and resource: call this when you need product details. However, it never explicitly states when not to use this tool or how it compares to the license-oriented sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.