Search for Autotask services by name, with optional filters for active status and result count.
Search for services with optional filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| searchTerm | No | Search term for service 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 present, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Search for services with optional filters,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it. No details about side effects, rate limits, or response characteristics are given.
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 short sentence that is concise and to the point. It contains no fluff, but it could be slightly expanded to include essential details without harming conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of service objects). It also lacks information on default pagination, maximum results, or how to interpret results. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, e.g., it does not explain search behavior (fuzzy vs exact) or that isActive filters active services.
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 searches for services with optional filters. The verb 'Search' and resource 'services' are unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling search tools like autotask_search_companies, autotask_search_tickets, etc., which all follow the same pattern.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must 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.