Retrieve available companies from TaskLogger to link tasks to the appropriate organization.
Get available companies (for linking to tasks).
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": "get_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?
There are no annotations provided, and the description doesn't disclose behavioral details such as return format, required authentication, or side effects. Beyond stating that it retrieves available companies, it offers no additional transparency, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is retrieved and why. It could specify that it returns a list, but that's implied by 'companies' and the nature of the tool.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description doesn't add or require parameter semantics.
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 'Get' with the resource 'companies', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve other entities (users, departments, statuses). It also provides context ('for linking to tasks'), clarifying its role.
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?
It indicates the tool is used when linking tasks to companies, giving a clear use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.