List sys_sg_mobile_application definitions, not installed client usage. This model has no active column.
List sys_sg_mobile_application definitions, not installed client usage. This model has no active column.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / activeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Filter active (default true)",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +1000Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful schema fact — 'This model has no active column' — which warns the agent off a filter that would otherwise seem natural, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, or why an open-world hint applies to a static table.
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 short sentences with zero filler, and the positive identification comes before the exclusion. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.
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 simple read-only list tool with a single integer parameter the description covers identity and one schema quirk, which is close to sufficient. Missing are pagination semantics for 'limit' and any sense of what a returned definition contains — gaps that matter because there is no output schema to fall back on.
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% for the sole parameter 'limit', and the description does not mention it at all. It does not state the default page size, whether the result is truncated at the 1000 maximum, or how to page beyond it — notable given there is no offset/cursor parameter to pair with limit.
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 and resource ('List sys_sg_mobile_application definitions') and explicitly scopes out an adjacent concept ('not installed client usage'), which is a real disambiguation need given siblings like list_acc_agents and get_mobile_app_config. It never names a sibling tool, 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?
The negation 'not installed client usage' functions as an implicit when-not, but there is no positive trigger condition and no routing to get_mobile_app_config (single config) or list_mobile_applets, both plausible alternatives in this sibling set. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.