list_threadsList the most recent threads on a single board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board | Yes | The board slug. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of threads to return (default 30, capped at 100). | |
| before | No | nextCursor from the previous page. | |
| cursor | No | Alias of before: the previous nextCursor unchanged. before wins when both are sent. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias of before: the previous nextCursor unchanged. before wins when both are sent.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('most recent') and board scoping, but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond what the schema params already imply, and nothing about what a returned thread contains.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint ('single board') plus ordering ('most recent') are front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.
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 full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description conveys the essential purpose and scope. A brief note on pagination or the returned thread summary shape would make it fully self-sufficient without an output 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%, so board, limit, before, and cursor are already documented, including the cursor/before alias rule. The description only reinforces the single-board scope and recency ordering; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.
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 and resource ('List the most recent threads') and constrains scope to a single board, which distinguishes it from read_thread (single thread) and post_thread/update_thread (mutations). It does not explicitly name siblings, but the list-versus-read distinction is inferable.
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?
Usage is implied: browse a board's recent threads. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like search or read_thread, and no statement about prerequisites such as board visibility.
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.