list_chatsList the authenticated user's conversations (most recently updated first).
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_chats"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of chats to return (1-200). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema — results are ordered most-recently-updated first — but says nothing about whether results are truncated by the limit or what identifying fields each chat carries.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering detail in a tight parenthetical. No filler, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with siblings.
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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with a fully described schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, though noting the absence of pagination would have closed the last gap.
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% and the single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema with default, min and max. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about limit (e.g., that it is a hard cap with no pagination cursor), so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('List ... conversations') and scopes it to the authenticated user, so the agent knows exactly what will be returned. It does not name or contrast with the relevant sibling (get_messages, synaplan_chat), so differentiation is left implicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrasing: reach for this when you need the user's conversation index. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_messages for content or synaplan_chat for interacting, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
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.