list_decisionsList your decision records: the trajectory built so far.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End date (ISO 8601) | |
| from | No | Start date (ISO 8601) | |
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Offset for pagination | |
| auth_token | No | Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / auth_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your DA agent auth token"New value: +"Your DA agent auth token. Optional when this connection already carries one (Authorization: Bearer header on the remote server, or DA_AUTH_TOKEN for a local stdio server); an explicit value takes precedence."Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "auth_token"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's only behavioral hint is 'the trajectory built so far', which loosely suggests a chronological decision sequence, but it doesn't disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or result volume. Little added beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient, though the second clause is vague filler rather than earning 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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return shape (what a decision record contains) and pagination ordering, since limit/offset are present. The 'trajectory built so far' phrase gestures at this but does not make it concrete, leaving an adequate-but-thin definition.
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 all five parameters (from, to, limit, offset, auth_token) are already documented, including auth fallback and pagination. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 clear verb+resource ('List your decision records'), which is enough to identify the operation. However, the trailing clause 'the trajectory built so far' is vague and adds no distinguishing detail, and no sibling (e.g. get_decision, get_decision_metadata_distribution) is referenced to clarify scope.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. Nothing tells the agent why to call this rather than get_decision or get_decision_metadata_distribution, both of which appear in the sibling list.
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.