List tracked lifecycle event names seen in a project.
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_event_names"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| project_id | No | Target project ID | |
| project_slug | No | Target project slug (helpdesk slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read, but nothing is said about ordering, pagination, whether results are deduplicated or time-windowed, or what happens when the project is unspecified despite all params being optional.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three optional parameters, the definition is too thin. An agent can't tell the return shape (array of strings?), ordering, or scoping defaults from this description.
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 67% (project_id and project_slug documented, limit undocumented). The description adds nothing beyond 'in a project', leaving the limit's behavior and the project_id-vs-slug choice unaddressed.
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+resource: 'List tracked lifecycle event names' scoped to a project. It's clearly a read/enumeration tool, distinct from the mutating sibling track_event, though it doesn't name that sibling 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as track_event (which records events) or list_projects. The agent must infer usage from the name alone; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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.