Revnu

List Review Queue

review_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List what is waiting for the customer's approval: drafts, questions, budgets and other cards their revnu growth agent has queued. Each card carries actions, the exact verbs the API accepts for it, and primaryLabel, what the dashboard's main button would say. One call returns up to 50 open cards (pass limit for up to 100; any beyond that are not returned): pending ones and ones the agent is revising together, with status on each card saying which. There is no status filter. Returns compact card summaries to the model; full drafts and evidence are delivered separately to the Revnu app. Use review_get only when the customer asks to inspect a particular draft. One successful call already shows the cards in hosts that support MCP Apps. Do not call again to display them, verify the same list, or fetch the same result with omitted/default arguments. Finish with a short count rather than copying the entire card list into chat. Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum open cards to return; default 50, range 1-100. Includes pending and revising cards in one call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Compact open-card summaries. Full drafts are available through review_get and the app.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / items / description

Previous value: -"Open review cards, including revisions."New value: +"Compact open-card summaries. Full drafts are available through review_get and the app."

changedOutput schema / properties / items / items / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
```

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / createdAt

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Unix epoch milliseconds.",
-  "type": "number"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / detail

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Additional context, when available.",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / options

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "items": {
-        "additionalProperties": false,
-        "properties": {
-          "label": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "value": {
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "required": [
-          "label",
-          "value"
-        ],
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "description": "Choices accepted by review_answer with action choose."
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / payload

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "properties": {},
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "description": "Source-specific draft, evidence or decision data."
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / prompt

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The question or approval request.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / summary

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Short summary, when available.",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / updatedAt

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Unix epoch milliseconds.",
-  "type": "number"
-}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum open cards to return; default 50, range 1-100. Includes pending and revising cards in one call."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "items": {
+      "description": "Open review cards, including revisions.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "actions": {
+            "description": "The exact action verbs this card accepts.",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "createdAt": {
+            "description": "Unix epoch milliseconds.",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "detail": {
+            "description": "Additional context, when available.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Review card ID for review_get and review actions.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "kind": {
+            "description": "Card kind, such as approval, question or update.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "options": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "items": {
+                  "additionalProperties": false,
+                  "properties": {
+                    "label": {
+                      "type": "string"
+                    },
+                    "value": {
+                      "type": "string"
+                    }
+                  },
+                  "required": [
+                    "label",
+                    "value"
+                  ],
+                  "type": "object"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Choices accepted by review_answer with action choose."
+          },
+          "payload": {
+            "anyOf": [
+              {
+                "additionalProperties": true,
+                "properties": {},
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              {
+                "type": "null"
+              }
+            ],
+            "description": "Source-specific draft, evidence or decision data."
+          },
+          "primaryLabel": {
+            "description": "Label of the dashboard's primary action.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "prompt": {
+            "description": "The question or approval request.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "sourceType": {
+            "description": "The work that produced this card, when available.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Current review state, including pending or needs_revision.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "summary": {
+            "description": "Short summary, when available.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Short title of the proposed work or decision.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updatedAt": {
+            "description": "Unix epoch milliseconds.",
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "kind",
+          "sourceType",
+          "status",
+          "title",
+          "actions",
+          "primaryLabel"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover the safety/idempotency profile; the description adds substantive behavior: a 50-card default cap that silently drops anything beyond, no status filter, mixed pending/revising statuses, that only compact summaries reach the model while full drafts go to the Revnu app, and that a single call renders cards in MCP Apps hosts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and routing come first, and the anti-patterns at the end are high-value. The description is dense and slightly long, with the limit behavior restated in two places, but nearly every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be detailed, yet the description still tells the agent what it receives (compact summaries, per-card actions/primaryLabel/status). With one optional param and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the limit parameter's default, range and scope are already fully documented. The description restates this and adds only the truncation behavior for values beyond the cap, which is return semantics rather than parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 what is waiting for the customer's approval: drafts, questions, budgets and other cards') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling review_get. An agent can distinguish this bulk-listing tool from review_get/review_search without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing ('Use review_get only when the customer asks to inspect a particular draft') plus hard anti-patterns: do not call again to display, verify the same list, or refetch with omitted/default arguments. It also prescribes the response style (short count, not the full card list), which is unusually complete guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Revnu tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?