list_companiesRetrieve the companies a Wint user can access, including company IDs and organization numbers, so you can select the correct company for bookkeeping tasks.
Companies this Wint user can access, with company_id and org number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful scope by saying results are limited to companies the current Wint user can access, and it mentions returned identifiers, but it does not explain authentication requirements, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.
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 a single compact phrase with no wasted text. It front-loads the resource and scope, then notes the return fields. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is appropriately concise.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, and with rich annotations it does not need to restate safety properties. It gives the essential scope and return hints. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the connected-user prerequisite, but the core information is present.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema is trivially complete for a no-argument list operation.
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 clearly states the resource and scope: companies accessible to the current Wint user. It also names the returned identifiers. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'list', but the title and name supply that, and no sibling tool covers the same company-listing purpose.
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 'this Wint user can access' implies the tool is used after authenticating a Wint user and is scoped to that user's permissions. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, prerequisite note, or comparison to alternatives, but the usage is reasonably implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.