Get a list of divisions for an account to identify departments and organizational structure. Use account_id to fetch the directory of divisions.
Справочник подразделений (отделов).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Вернуть полный сырой ответ без курирования | |
| account_id | Yes | ID аккаунта HuntFlow |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| items | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| total_items | No | ||
| next_page_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or if any side effects occur. The 'list_' prefix suggests read-only, but this is not explicit.
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?
The description is extremely concise, containing only a single noun phrase with no redundant words. It earns full marks for brevity and absence of fluff.
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?
The description is minimal, lacking details about the response structure or any special behavior (e.g., pagination, ordering). While the tool name and sibling context provide some context, the description alone does not fully equip an agent to understand edge cases or expected output.
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?
Both parameters are described clearly: raw indicates returning the full uncurated response, and account_id specifies the HuntFlow account ID. The schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions, exceeding the baseline for high coverage.
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 description 'Directory of divisions (departments)' clearly indicates the tool returns a list of divisions, matching its name. It is concise but sufficient to understand the core purpose, though a more explicit verb like 'retrieve' would be clearer.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_stages or list_sources. No prerequisites or contextual usage hints are given, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.