Retrieve all companies linked to your Investec CIB corporate profile.
List all companies associated with the CIB corporate profile.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "investec_cib_list_companies"
}
}| 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 full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. For a simple tool, this is minimally adequate.
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 that directly conveys the purpose without any extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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?
There are no parameters (input schema is empty), so the description does not need to add parameter information. With 100% schema coverage (by being empty), the baseline is 4, and the description does not add confusion.
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 verb (List), the resource (companies), and the scope (associated with CIB corporate profile). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, which are primarily about cards, accounts, and other functions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use. While the tool is straightforward with no parameters, the lack of mention of alternatives or context leaves the agent with minimal decision support. However, sibling tools are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.