list_recent_operationsList recent offchain operation handoffs. Secrets and browser execution tokens are never returned by this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of records to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds an important security behavior: secrets and tokens are never returned. This goes beyond annotations and is critical for agent judgment.
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, no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second clarifies a critical security constraint.
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 simple listing tool with a single parameter, the description covers the essential aspects. The output schema exists (per context) and annotations are strong, so the description does not need to explain return values. Some might want ordering details, but it's sufficient.
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 only parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema with documentation that the description does not augment. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool lists 'recent offchain operation handoffs', a specific verb+resource combination. The explicit note about secrets and browser execution tokens never being returned adds precise scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_xdala_sessions or get_operation_status.
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 implies usage for listing handoffs and warns about what is not returned, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other list tools). No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.
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.
There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.
The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.
With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.
The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.