Summarize active deals by stage with AED values, open total, and expected close in 30 days.
Deals by stage (count + AED value), open pipeline total, and open deals expected to close in the next 30 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds useful detail about what the summary contains (by-stage breakdowns, open total, upcoming closes), but it does not disclose things like refresh cadence, permissions needed, or result completeness.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs all key information without any filler. Every component listed (deals by stage, count + AED value, open pipeline total, next 30 days) earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params), existing annotations that cover safety behavior, and the presence of an output schema for return values, the description is complete enough. It clearly states the scope and dimensions of the summary.
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 baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the empty schema is self-consistent.
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 specific resource (pipeline) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: deals by stage with count and AED value, open pipeline total, and open deals expected to close in 30 days. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with contacts, tasks, inventory, orders, and deal stage updates.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it returns, not the context or conditions under which an agent should select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.