List the account's chats, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 20. | |
| search | No | Only chats whose title matches. | |
| ending_before | No | Return the page before this id — the first id from the previous page. | |
| starting_after | No | Return the page after this id — the last id from the previous page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| has_more | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the 'newest first' ordering, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result bounds; the cursor parameters in the schema cover most of the rest.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it gives the action, scope, and ordering immediately. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given that the schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely sufficient for a simple list tool. It could be more complete by pointing at get_chat or list_messages for related operations, but the core account-scoped list semantics are clear.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents limit, search, ending_before, and starting_after. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 names the exact verb ('List'), the resource ('the account's chats'), and the ordering ('newest first'), so an agent knows precisely what this tool does. This also separates it from siblings like get_chat (single chat vs. list) and list_messages/list_runs (different resource).
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 about when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_chat or list_messages, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only implied context is the resource name itself, which is not enough to direct an agent deciding among the list-type tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.