increase_list_entitiesList entities (the people/businesses — KYC records — that own accounts). Increase API: GET /entities. Filter by status (sent as status.in).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–100. Default 100. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor. | |
| status | No | Status filter (sent as status.in), e.g. active | archived | disabled. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of listing adds minimal behavioral context. It clarifies that entities are KYC records, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or rate limits.
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?
Two sentences, direct and efficient. No fluff; each sentence serves a purpose: defining entities and describing endpoint/filter.
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 simple list tool with 3 params, no output schema, and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers entity type and filter, but lacks mention of pagination behavior or how to use the cursor beyond schema.
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 coverage is 100%; description adds syntax detail 'sent as status.in' for the status parameter, which is value beyond the schema's description. Other parameters (limit, cursor) rely on schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'List entities (the people/businesses — KYC records — that own accounts)' using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_accounts, list_transactions) by specifying entities are KYC records.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_accounts or list_external_accounts. Only mentions filtering by status, not context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type (account, account number, ACH transfer, etc.) with clear verb_noun naming, making them easily distinguishable.
All tools follow a consistent `increase_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case, with verbs like create, get, list, lookup.
18 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope of banking operations (accounts, transfers, transactions, cards, entities) justifies the count.
The server is heavily read-only with only one mutation (create_external_account). Missing create/update/delete for accounts, transfers, cards, etc., which limits its usefulness for full banking workflows.