list_loansRetrieve your real estate loans with optional filtering by property. Get bank, capital, rate, term, monthly payment, insurance, dates, and total estimated cost.
Liste les emprunts immobiliers de l'utilisateur avec filtre optionnel par bien. Retourne pour chaque emprunt : banque, capital, taux, durée, mensualité, assurance, dates de début/fin et coût total estimé.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by listing the exact fields returned for each loan (bank, capital, rate, duration, monthly payment, insurance, dates, estimated total cost). No side effects or contradictions are introduced; it enhances the annotated safety profile.
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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and optional filter, the second enumerates the return fields. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse.
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 simple list endpoint with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and return data comprehensively. The read-only annotation confirms safety, and sibling tool names aid differentiation, making this description sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the sole parameter (property_id) as an optional filter by property. It also implies that omitting it returns all loans, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 precise verb 'Liste' and clearly identifies the resource ('emprunts immobiliers de l'utilisateur') with an optional filter by property. It also enumerates the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_loan (singular) or compute_loan_schedule by making clear this is a collection operation.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to retrieve the user's real estate loans, optionally filtered by a property. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear for a list operation versus a single-item fetch like get_loan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.