list_service_casesList owned delivery reviews with assigned operator, due date, and fulfillment summary; use limit and offset to page through service cases.
Read owned delivery reviews, assigned operator, due date and fulfillment summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only 'owned' reviews are returned, but it says nothing about ordering, default page size, or what a fulfillment summary contains — gaps that matter for a paginated listing tool.
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 a single compact sentence, which is good, but it front-loads a field enumeration instead of the core action and subject. The terseness comes at the cost of clarity rather than being an efficiency win.
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 paginated read tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, an agent still lacks page size defaults, result ordering, and how the returned fields map to the response. Key invocation details are missing.
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 0% and the description mentions neither 'limit' nor 'offset', their bounds (1–25, 0–1000000), nor default pagination behavior. With two undocumented, non-obvious parameters the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 verb 'Read' plus the field list ('delivery reviews, assigned operator, due date, fulfillment summary') hints at a listing of service cases, but the description never uses the tool's own vocabulary ('service cases' / 'list'), instead calling them 'delivery reviews'. An agent must infer that this returns a collection of service cases, and the description gives no clue how it differs from the sibling get_service_case.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_service_case, reply_to_service_case, or the publisher-task listers. The word 'owned' implicitly narrows scope but no explicit inclusion/exclusion guidance or prerequisite is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.