list_recent_chatsBusiness — List the user's recent Worklittle chats (title and status) for the app sidebar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max chats (default 20, max 50). | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "next_cursor from the previous page.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max chats (default 30, max 50)."New value: +"Max chats (default 20, max 50)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (title, status) but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or auth requirements beyond the schema's cursor hint. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Slightly terse but nothing wasted.
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?
The tool is a simple two-param read with an output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description. The behavior is adequately covered for a low-complexity listing tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (List) and resource (user's recent Worklittle chats) and even names the returned fields (title and status) and the intended consumer (app sidebar). It is clear without needing sibling differentiation, since no other sibling lists chats.
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 phrase 'for the app sidebar' hints at context but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent gets no guidance on how this differs from, say, searching or filtering chats.
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.