List open governance requests on this account: pending (awaiting signature) and legacy scheduled rows. Use to monitor for unexpected loosening attempts.
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_governance_requests"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the list includes pending requests awaiting signature and legacy scheduled rows, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not state read-only nature, authorization requirements, return ordering, or pagination behavior.
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 short and front-loaded with the resource and scope. The second sentence adds a clear monitoring use case without waste. The phrase 'legacy scheduled rows' is slightly unexplained but not enough to undermine conciseness.
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-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what is listed and why, but does not describe the return shape, ordering, or whether pagination applies, which an agent might need in the absence of an output schema.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 states a specific verb and resource: listing open governance requests on the account. It further scopes the result to pending (awaiting signature) and legacy scheduled rows, which clarifies what is being listed. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as list_pending_cosigner_approvals, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives a clear use context: monitoring for unexpected loosening attempts. That is more than implied usage and helps the agent understand why to call it. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or explicit alternatives among sibling governance tools.
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.