Find service bundles by name or active status. Specify search term, filter by active, and set result count to locate bundles for quoting or configuration.
Search for service bundles with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| searchTerm | No | Search term for service bundle name | |
| isActive | No | Filter by active status | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied by 'search'), pagination details (pageSize param suggests but doesn't state), rate limits, or permissions. The description is too sparse to be transparent.
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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not prioritize key information or include examples. It is functional but not optimally structured for quick comprehension.
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 simplicity of the tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimal but insufficient. It does not mention the return format, default page size, or how results are ordered. Compared to similar search tools in the sibling list, it provides only the bare minimum.
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%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds only that filters are optional (matching the schema). It does not add meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.
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 action ('Search') and the resource ('service bundles'), and mentions optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'autotask_get_service_bundle' (which retrieves a specific bundle) and 'autotask_search_services' (different resource), but does not elaborate on what a service bundle is.
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 such as 'autotask_get_service_bundle' for a known service bundle ID or 'autotask_search_services' for searching services. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.