List chat support tickets with pagination and filters. Retrieves up to 50 chat records per page without modifying data.
Lista atendimentos de chat (50 por pagina). Nao altera dados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| max_protocol | No | ||
| min_protocol | No | ||
| department_id | No | ||
| organization_id | No | ||
| creation_date_ge | No | ||
| creation_date_le | No | ||
| customer_type_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the operation does not alter data and discloses the 50-per-page pagination behavior. It does not describe response format or filtering effects, but the safety profile is clearly communicated.
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 highly concise: two short phrases that deliver the core action, resource scope, pagination size, and read-only nature. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.
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 tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level descriptions, the description is insufficient. It tells the agent what the tool is for but gives no guidance on constructing a correct call or interpreting results, so an agent cannot reliably use the advanced filters.
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 0%, and the description names none of the 9 parameters or their semantic meaning. An agent receives only property names and types from the schema, with no help from the description about how filters like min_protocol, creation_date_ge, or customer_type_id should be used.
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 ('Lista') and a specific resource ('atendimentos de chat'), which clearly identifies this as a chat-record listing tool. It also adds the 50-per-page detail and the read-only note, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_chat, list_tickets, and list_open_tickets.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as tomticket_list_tickets or tomticket_list_open_tickets. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.