list_frictionsBrowse the register: compact list of all published friction records, sorted by last-verified date (newest first). Filter by status and/or category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Optional status filter: "open" (problem exists), "mitigated" (reliable workaround), "fixed" (resolved and re-verified), "regressed" (was fixed, is back). | |
| category | No | Optional category filter. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds sorting and compact list nature but does not contradict 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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, sorting, and filtering without any superfluous information.
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?
Complete for a list tool with two optional params and annotations covering safety; could mention return type (list of records) but not essential.
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% with descriptions for both parameters; description merely echoes filtering capability, adding no new semantic meaning.
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 friction records with sorting and filtering, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_frictions or get_friction_record.
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?
Implied usage is clear (browsing with optional filters), but no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as search_frictions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: overview, specific record, pattern retrieval, listing, error lookup, and search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern (e.g., get_current_drift, list_frictions, lookup_error), with clear action and object.
Seven tools cover the domain comprehensively without being excessive. Each tool serves a specific need for querying the friction index.
The tool set provides complete read access to the friction index: overview, detailed records, patterns, listings with filters, error lookup, and full-text search. No obvious gaps for a read-only register.