negotiation_listList all your negotiation rooms: state, round, whose turn it is, deadline. Open rooms only unless include_closed. Use it to see where things stand; for one room's terms and next move, use negotiation_read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_closed | No | Include finished rooms |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / room_tokensRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The room_token of every room you want to hear about.",
- "items": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "maxItems": 20,
- "type": "array"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "room_tokens"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds the meaningful default scoping rule — open rooms only unless include_closed — plus the returned fields, which no annotation conveys. It stops short of describing ordering or volume, but for a read-only list this is well beyond the annotation baseline.
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, no filler. Scope and returned fields come first, the default filter second, and the sibling routing last — a correct front-loaded ordering.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the key return fields (state, round, turn, deadline) so the agent knows what it gets. Combined with the filter default and the sibling pointer, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.
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?
With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema omits: the schema only says 'Include finished rooms' while the description establishes the default of open-rooms-only. That default is exactly what an agent needs to reason about omitting the parameter.
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 all your negotiation rooms') and enumerates the fields returned (state, round, whose turn it is, deadline), which distinguishes it from the other negotiation_* siblings. An agent can identify this as the collection-level read without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it ('to see where things stand') and names the alternative for the other case ('for one room's terms and next move, use negotiation_read'). The routing condition between list and read is fully specified.
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.