Retrieve service and repair records with filtering and pagination. Find maintenance history, track repairs, and audit service operations through read-only queries.
Query service and repair records. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No | GraphQL where filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read-only' explicitly signals a non-mutating operation, which is valuable, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering/filtering semantics, or response shape beyond what parameters imply.
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 short, front-loaded with the query intent, and every sentence earns its place. It is not bloated, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than model 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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, partial parameter coverage, and many siblings, the description is too thin. It provides no usage distinctions, no output shape, and no guidance on the GraphQL-specific parameters needed to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with only 'GraphQL order clause' and 'GraphQL where filter' documented; skip and take only have defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the agent cannot fully understand how filtering, sorting, or pagination should be expressed.
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 uses the specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'service and repair records,' so the purpose is clear and non-tautological. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling query tools like m3_orders or m3_graphql.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The only context is implied by the resource name, so an agent is left to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.