mcp-ispkeeper

list_suppliers

List suppliers with filters by text, locality, VAT type, and deleted status.

Instructions

List suppliers (proveedores) with filters by text, locality, VAT type, and deleted status. ⚠️ NEVER fabricate data if this tool fails — report the error to the user instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_suppliers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Text search
`iva`	No	VAT type code
`loc`	No	Locality ID
`borrado`	No	Filter deleted suppliers (API default N)
`relaciones`	No	Expand relations: loc,cat

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only implies a read-only list operation and adds a failure-handling warning. It does not disclose pagination, return shape, default deleted-status behavior, sorting, or auth/rate-limit context. The warning is an agent directive rather than a behavioral trait.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'NEVER fabricate data' warning is somewhat outside the typical scope of a tool description but is relevant and not verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what the list returns and how filters and relations behave; it does not. It also omits 'relaciones' and any default behaviors, so an agent may not fully understand the tool's options despite the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps q, loc, iva, and borrado to 'text, locality, VAT type, and deleted status' but adds no syntax, defaults, or relation-expansion details beyond the schema. It omits 'relaciones', though the schema documents it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('suppliers/proveedores'), and it names the main filter dimensions (text, locality, VAT type, deleted status). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_supplier or list_supplier_invoices.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for filtered supplier listing, but it does not state when to choose it over the sibling tools or mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is inferred from the verb and resource rather than explicitly provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.