list_companiesRetrieve CRM companies with optional name or industry filters. Use this to search and view company records.
List CRM companies, optionally filtered by name search or industry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Case-insensitive substring match on company name | |
| industry | No | Exact industry match, e.g. 'Software' |
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 behavioral burden. It does not state pagination behavior, result limits, ordering, or read-only status. For a listing tool this is a meaningful gap, leaving the agent to guess at result-set characteristics.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; purpose and filtering scope are stated immediately.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate for behavioral and result-shape gaps, but it does not. It omits read-safety, pagination, and how results relate to sibling listing tools, leaving the definition under-specified for a no-annotation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema (case-insensitive substring vs exact match). The description adds only the high-level notion of filtering and nothing beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (CRM companies), and distinguishes itself from get_company (singular single-entity) and create_company/update_company. The optional filtering scope is included. It does not, however, distinguish itself from list_contacts/list_deals or search_crm beyond the resource name.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the 'optionally filtered' phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative. An agent could plausibly confuse this with search_crm, and the description offers no condition to choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.