Retrieve client intake requests from the Drop Spot workspace, filtered by status or client email, to review and track document collection progress.
List client intake requests in the Drop Spot workspace. Filter by status or client email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of requests to return (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| status | No | Filter by dossier status | |
| clientEmail | No | Filter by specific client email |
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 disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, that it is paginated, or what permissions are required, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
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 short sentences with no waste, and the primary action and scoping are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information about the resource and supported filters.
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 three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, because there is no output schema, it could do more to indicate what the returned intake requests contain or how pagination behaves, leaving some context incomplete.
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%, and the schema already documents limit, status, and clientEmail with defaults, ranges, and enum values. The description repeats the status and clientEmail filtering but does not add format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so a 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?
The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('client intake requests') scoped to the Drop Spot workspace. It is clearly distinguishable from get_intake_request and create_intake_request, though it does not explicitly mention those siblings.
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 implies usage by stating that results can be filtered by status or client email, which gives the agent a reason to call it. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any conditions under which it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.