list_child_scopesProvide a parent scope ID to list its child scopes or tenants, revealing the hierarchical tenant/business structure for RBAC and policy management.
Lista los tenants/scopes hijos de un scope padre (estructura de tenants/negocios).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID del scope padre |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'lists' without explicitly stating it is read-only or has no side effects. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior.
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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It directly conveys the action and target, maintaining excellent structure.
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?
While the purpose and parameter are clear, the description lacks any mention of the expected output (e.g., list format, fields returned) or potential error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
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 single parameter 'id' is fully described as 'ID del scope padre', providing clear meaning and required context. Schema coverage is 100% with a descriptive label.
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 function: listing child tenants/scopes of a parent scope. It specifies the resource (children) and the relationship (parent), distinguishing it from other scope-related tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tenants or get_scope_review. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.