List this agent’s memory drafts for the connected account (status, expiry, pending confirmations). Use it to resume an unfinished memory.
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": "get_my_drafts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | Filter by status; omit for all. |
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; "List" implies a read-only operation and it discloses returned fields (status, expiry, pending confirmations) and account scoping. It says nothing about ordering, default page size, or whether the limit caps results, which matters for a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded with the use case second. The parenthetical of return fields is compact and informative, though it slightly muddies the line between what is returned and what can be filtered.
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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it is and one motivating scenario. It leaves pagination, result ordering, and auth/connection prerequisites unaddressed, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 50%: the status enum is documented in the schema ("Filter by status; omit for all") while limit only has min/max bounds and no explanation. The description's mention of "status" refers to returned data, not the filter, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema and does not compensate for the undocumented limit.
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?
A specific verb plus resource plus scope: "List this agent's memory drafts for the connected account." It also previews the payload (status, expiry, pending confirmations). It does not explicitly contrast with get_my_memories or get_memory_details, so the sibling 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?
One use case is stated ("resume an unfinished memory"), which implies the tool is for recovering in-progress work. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_my_memories for settled memories, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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.