Export all suppliers for the active company as a base64-encoded UTF-8 CSV with BOM; optionally override the configured company ID.
Export all suppliers for the active company as a CSV file. Returns base64-encoded UTF-8 CSV with BOM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides configured default) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new information: the return is base64-encoded UTF-8 CSV with a BOM, which matters for downstream decoding and is not covered by any output schema. It stops short of noting size limits or what 'active company' resolution means when companyId is absent.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste, leading with the operation and following with the return format that an agent needs to handle the result.
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?
With no output schema and only one optional parameter, the definition covers what the tool does and what it returns well enough to call correctly. Minor gaps remain around default company resolution and any size/volume limits on a full export.
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 coverage is 100% and the single companyId parameter is fully documented as an override of the configured default. The description's 'active company' phrasing adds no syntax detail and slightly muddies the default-vs-override distinction the schema already makes clear.
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?
States a specific verb ('Export'), resource ('all suppliers'), scope ('for the active company'), and format ('CSV file'), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from suppliers_list or suppliers_export_saga_xml. It does not name those siblings explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.
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 phrase 'all suppliers for the active company' implies this is a bulk export with no filtering, hinting at when to prefer it over the paginated suppliers_list. However, it never states when to use this versus suppliers_list or suppliers_export_saga_xml, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.