Retrieve notes associated with a specific company by providing the company ID. Optionally set the number of results per page (up to 100).
Search for notes on a specific company
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | The company ID to search notes for | |
| pageSize | No | Number of results to return (default: 25, max: 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', without indicating that results are paginated (though pageSize parameter exists), what fields are returned, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about key behaviors like ordering or filtering capabilities.
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 very concise at 8 words, but it lacks structure and could be expanded to include key details without being verbose. It is not wasteful, but perhaps too terse for optimal clarity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description should provide more context about the nature of notes (e.g., are they internal, customer-facing?), the response format (list of note objects), and search behavior. The current description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents the parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Search for notes on a specific company' clearly identifies the verb (search) and the resource (notes on a company). It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_get_company_note (which likely retrieves a single note) and autotask_search_companies (which searches companies, not notes). However, it does not specify what constitutes a 'note' in this context, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use search_company_notes vs get_company_note, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The description is solely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.