Retrieve the list of CRM visit reason codes to categorize customer visits and maintain consistent records.
CRM visit causes: CRM visit reason codes. Actions: lista.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Which endpoint action to call |
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, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication needs, caching, or pagination. The 'lista' action weakly implies a read, but nothing is stated explicitly.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the opening clause 'CRM visit causes: CRM visit reason codes' is redundant repetition rather than information. The 'Actions:' fragment is terse to the point of being cryptic.
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?
The tool is a simple single-parameter code lookup, so a minimal description is nearly sufficient, and the enum fully specifies invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description still omits what a caller receives, leaving the definition only marginally complete.
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 single 'action' parameter is fully constrained by an enum, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Actions: lista' merely echoes the one allowed value rather than adding format or meaning.
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 identifies the resource (CRM visit reason codes) but supplies no verb, and the first two phrases are essentially restatements of the tool name. The only indication of what it does is 'Actions: lista', which implies a listing/retrieval endpoint. An agent gets the domain but must infer the 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of any sibling tool (e.g. luceed_sifrarnici). 'Actions: lista' names the sole action but does not tell the agent when this codebook is the right one to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.