Retrieve available service offerings from Waldur to explore and select resources for deployment and management.
List all offerings
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_offerings"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all offerings' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., active only, all statuses). This is a significant gap 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?
The description 'List all offerings' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what 'offerings' are, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), and any limitations or dependencies. For a list operation, this minimal information may lead to incorrect assumptions by the agent.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description need not compensate for missing param info.
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 'List all offerings' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('offerings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'offerings' are (e.g., products, services, plans) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_customers' or 'list_resources', leaving ambiguity about scope.
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 alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for browsing available items or if other tools like 'query' might be more appropriate for filtered searches. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.