list_scenarios List the user's saved what-if scenarios (active, not deleted).
Each scenario is a "potential choice" that auto-expires 60 days after
creation. The full projected impact is available per scenario by id.
Returns:
{"scenarios": [{id, name, status, item_count, expires_at, ...}],
"count": N}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: scenarios auto-expire 60 days after creation, deleted ones are excluded, and the return payload shape is shown.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact note on expiry, then the return shape. The inline expandable detail is acceptable but the Returns block adds a little bulk that could be trimmed given there is no output schema.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by sketching the response shape ({scenarios: [...], count}). Combined with the expiry and soft-delete notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the schema to expand on, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 (List) and resource (user's saved what-if scenarios) and narrows scope to active, not-deleted entries. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_scenario, create_scenario, and delete_scenario.
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?
The description conveys when to use it (enumerate saved scenarios) and hints at the alternative route by noting 'The full projected impact is available per scenario by id,' which points toward get_scenario. It never names that sibling explicitly or states exclusions, 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.