Published threads, most recently active first. Optional category slug.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_threads"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are restricted to published threads and sorted by most recent activity. It says nothing about the default/maximum result count, pagination, or what happens when a category matches nothing.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most important fact (which threads, in what order) and no filler. The second sentence is a dangling fragment rather than a complete clause, which slightly hurts readability but not economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. Still, for a tool whose schema is undocumented, the description leaves an entire parameter (limit) unaddressed and gives no pagination or empty-result guidance, which is not enough to call it correctly without guessing.
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 0%, so the description must carry meaning for both parameters. It only gestures at 'category' ('Optional category slug'), which is barely more than the property name and gives no slug format or matching rules. The 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, including its default of 20 or any maximum.
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 fragment 'Published threads, most recently active first' identifies the resource and adds scope (published only) plus ordering, but states no verb; the listing action is only inferable from the tool name. It does partially separate the tool from read_thread (single thread) and search, but not explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus read_thread, open_thread, pit_read, or search, nor any note about paging through results. The only hint is 'Optional category slug', which is a parameter note rather than usage direction.
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.