Lists all agendas (companies/databases) in the Money S3 instance with their GUIDs, enabling selection of the specific agenda to operate on.
List all agendas (companies/databases) in this Money S3 instance with their GUIDs. Use the GUID to select which agenda to work with via m3_set_agenda.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 disclosure burden. It correctly conveys a read-only listing operation and the fact that it returns GUIDs, but it does not describe response details, error behavior, or any instance-level prerequisites. It is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence immediately tells the agent what to do with the returned GUIDs.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, what the output includes (GUIDs), and how the output should be used downstream. An agent can invoke it correctly without further detail.
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 is empty with 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description contains no misleading parameter references.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all agendas') and clarifies the domain term as companies/databases. It also names the follow-up tool m3_set_agenda, clearly positioning this tool as the GUID source among many siblings.
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?
The description gives a clear workflow: call this tool to obtain GUIDs, then use m3_set_agenda to select an agenda. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternative comparisons, but the intended context is clear from the stated next step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.