Retrieve ecosystem components from the Plat multifamily real-estate catalog, optionally filtered by category. Access verified details for underwriting, renovation, tax, and operations.
List ecosystem components, optionally filtered by category.
Categories are a closed vocabulary; an unknown category is returned as a typed unknown_category refusal naming the valid categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does add a meaningful trait: unknown categories produce a typed unknown_category refusal that names valid categories. This goes beyond the name and schema by explaining the failure mode and the closed-vocabulary behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and optionality, while the second covers an important edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the main behavior and the invalid-input case, but it leaves ambiguity around how this tool relates to siblings like list_public_components and list_private_components. It also doesn't describe the shape of the returned component list, though the word 'List' implies an array of components.
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 provides only a nullable string with no description, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the category is optional, that categories are a closed vocabulary, and that an invalid value yields a refusal naming valid categories. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the parameter's contract, although it doesn't enumerate the valid categories.
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 a clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('ecosystem components'), with the optional category filter stated upfront. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like list_public_components or list_private_components, so the differentiation is left to the reader.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_public_components, list_private_components, find_components, or search_components. The description only mentions the optional category filter, which is a parameter detail rather than usage-direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.