List all available tracking plans, optionally filtered by business type such as ecommerce or lead generation.
Lists all available tracking plans with optional filtering by business_type ('ecommerce' or 'lead_generation').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_type | No | Optional filter by business type: 'ecommerce' or 'lead_generation' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing beyond the name: no confirmation that this is read-only, no pagination or ordering behavior, no return shape, and no auth requirements. 'Lists all' hints at a safe read but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the filter and its allowed values come after the core action. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough that it could carry a little more context without bloating.
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-optional-param list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say something about what a tracking plan record contains or how results are returned/paged. That gap leaves the agent without return-shape or safety context.
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 parameter is a fully documented enum, so the schema already does the work. The description merely repeats the same enum values, adding no new semantics; baseline 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 a specific verb (lists) and resource (tracking plans) with scope ('all available'), which implicitly separates it from the singular get_tracking_plan sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops 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 phrase 'all available ... with optional filtering' implies this is the enumeration/browse entry point versus get_tracking_plan or create_tracking_plan, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative is stated. Usage is inferable but not guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.