List custom fields for external tickets by department and category. Retrieve field definitions without changing any data, enabling accurate ticket forms.
Lista campos personalizados de chamados externos por departamento e categoria. Nao altera dados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category_id | No | ||
| department_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), making the read-only nature clear. It does not mention return shape or pagination, but for a simple list endpoint the no-side-effects guarantee is the most important 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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the side-effect note. Every word carries useful information and there is no filler.
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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and non-mutation. It does not explain filter behavior when parameters are omitted, but the low complexity and the schema's optionality make the description reasonably complete.
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%, so the description needs to compensate. It maps the two parameters to department and category, which aligns with department_id and category_id, but it does not clarify whether they are optional, how they combine, or what happens when omitted. The schema shows both are optional, so the description adds only minimal meaning beyond the property names.
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 ('campos personalizados de chamados externos por departamento e categoria'), adding scope beyond the tool name. This helps distinguish it from sibling listing tools such as list_ticket_custom_fields and list_department_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list/custom-field tools, and it does not name alternatives or exclusions. The intended use is only weakly implied by the scoping language, not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.