Retrieve meters for an Israel Electric Corporation contract, including device number and code, to identify the right meter. Pass a contract ID; it defaults to the first contract.
The meters on a contract, with deviceNumber and deviceCode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contractId | No | Contract number; defaults to the first contract. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about permissions, result ordering, or whether the call is a safe read. The only behavioral scrap is that results carry deviceNumber and deviceCode, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is a noun phrase rather than a complete statement of action, which slightly weakens it but not enough to penalize heavily.
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 one-parameter read tool whose parameter is fully documented, this is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what a meter record contains and how results are ordered or bounded; naming two fields alone leaves gaps.
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 contractId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the resource ('the meters') and its scope ('on a contract'), plus the two identifying fields returned. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_last_meter_reading or get_consumption, so it falls short of 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings such as get_last_meter_reading and get_consumption that also concern meters, an agent has no signal telling it when this enumeration tool is the right pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.