List this tenant's storylines (optionally filtered by agent). Includes state, version, default flag.
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_storylines"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tenant scoping, optional filter, and included fields, but does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether soft-deleted items are included. For a list operation, some behavioral details are missing.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and optional filter.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials. Minor gaps like pagination/ordering are not critical for a list tool but would slightly enhance completeness.
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 single parameter 'agent' is explained by the phrase 'optionally filtered by agent', adding meaning to the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well for the one param.
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 clearly states the tool lists storylines for the current tenant, optionally filtered by agent, and includes specific fields (state, version, default flag). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_agents, list_skills) and the singular get_storyline.
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 implies usage (when you need to list storylines) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_storyline or when to use the optional agent filter. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.