Query Luceed ERP code lists to retrieve countries and other reference values by list, single entry, name, code, or UID for Magento lookups.
Code lists: Generic Luceed code lists (countries, etc.). Magento uses drzava. Actions: list, list_one, fulllist, info, naziv, sifra, uid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Optional name/value filter | |
| action | Yes | Which endpoint action to call | |
| sifrarnik | No | Code list name e.g. drzava |
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 names actions but does not say whether the operations are read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are paged or returned, or how the actions differ behaviorally.
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 short and largely front-loaded, moving from resource to example to actions. The action list duplicates the enum but stays compact, and the Magento note is terse and potentially useful.
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 three-parameter generic retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context: return format, action semantics, and selection guidance. It gives an agent only the schema basics, not enough to call with confidence.
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 has 100% description coverage and already documents action, value, and sifrarnik. The description mostly repeats the action enum and the drzava example, adding little semantic value beyond the schema, though it does imply these are code-list lookup actions.
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 the resource as generic Luceed code lists with an example (countries), and it enumerates the available actions. However, it never states the verb independently in a natural-language way and does not differentiate this generic tool from specific sibling code-list tools such as luceed_vrste_placanja or luceed_grupe_artikala.
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 guidance about when to use this generic code-list tool versus the many resource-specific sibling tools, nor when to choose one action such as list, fulllist, or list_one over another. The Magento/drzava note is a data-value hint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.