Retrieve all activity types for your company to organize and filter accounting records.
Returns all activity types for the company
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "fiken_list_activities"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is low. The description adds that it returns 'all' activity types, implying a full list with no filtering. No contradictions found.
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 concise sentence, well front-loaded. However, for a tool with parameters, it is too brief and does not cover necessary 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?
Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain pagination parameters, the structure of the returned data, or any constraints. More detail is needed for effective use.
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 must explain parameters. It does not mention page or pageSize at all, nor their purpose or how to use them for pagination. The description only says 'all', which suggests no filtering but omits pagination details.
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 states the tool returns activity types for a company, using a specific verb and resource, which is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it does not distinguish from siblings, which are numerous but many differ in purpose.
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 like fiken_list_accounts or others. The description lacks any usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.