list_holdsList this tenant's held actions, open or decided or both, newest first — up to 100 at a time. Holds that expired unanswered are left out unless you ask for them. Record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows to return, default and cap 100. | |
| status | No | Only open (still waiting) or only decided holds. Omit for both. | |
| include | No | "expired" also lists holds that expired with nobody deciding. Omit for open and decided only. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / includeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "\"expired\" also lists holds that expired with nobody deciding. Omit for open and decided only.",
+ "enum": [
+ "expired"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / includeRemoved value: -{
- "description": "\"expired\" also lists holds that expired with nobody deciding. Omit for open and decided only.",
- "enum": [
- "expired"
- ],
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / includeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "\"expired\" also lists holds that expired with nobody deciding. Omit for open and decided only.",
+ "enum": [
+ "expired"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing ordering (newest first), the 100-row cap, and the default exclusion of expired holds. It does not discuss response shape or pagination details, but "List" reasonably implies a read-only operation.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary operation and scope. The only blemish is the trailing "Record.," which is unclear and adds no useful meaning.
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?
For a simple, all-optional, three-parameter list operation, the description provides the defaults, filtering options, ordering, and row cap needed to invoke it correctly. There is no output schema, so the returned-row shape is not described, but that is a minor gap for a standard list operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, status, and include. The description adds helpful context like "newest first" and "expired unanswered are left out unless you ask for them," but it does not substantially extend the parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "List this tenant's held actions," and clearly scopes the operation with status options, ordering, and a row cap. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like explain_hold or commit_gated_action because it is the bulk-listing operation.
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?
It gives clear context for when to call the tool—listing open, decided, or both held actions for the tenant—and explains the default omission of expired holds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.