List helpdesk departments with their categories, statuses, and attendees. Use this read-only tool to retrieve department details without altering data.
Lista departamentos da conta, com categorias, status e atendentes. Nao altera dados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show_nested_items | No | 0 so id/nome; 1 inclui categorias, status e atendentes. Padrao 1. |
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 behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Nao altera dados' (does not change data), clearly indicating a read-only operation. This is an important safety trait. It does not discuss pagination, response size, or permissions, but for a simple listing tool the key behavioral disclosure is present.
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 efficient sentence. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then compactly conveys included nested data and the read-only nature. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is returned and confirms non-mutation. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit direction about when to use sibling subresource-list tools instead, but this is minor for successful invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage: show_nested_items is documented with values 0 and 1, and the default is stated. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Lista departamentos da conta' (lists account departments), and it says what is included (categories, status, atendentes). It is clear about the tool's scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tomticket_list_department_categories, tomticket_list_department_operators, or tomticket_list_department_statuses.
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?
Usage context is implied: use this tool to list departments with their nested categories, statuses, and operators. However, the description provides no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or direct references to alternative sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.