list_goalsList goals, optionally filtered by status.
Args:
status: 'draft', 'active', 'blocked', 'paused', 'achieved', 'failed',
'expired' or 'superseded'. Omit for all. An unknown value returns
422.
skip: Number of results to skip.
limit: Maximum number of results. Default 50.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail beyond that: an unknown status value returns a 422 and the default page size is 50, which helps the agent avoid malformed calls.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block maps cleanly one-to-one to the parameters with no padding. Slightly verbose formatting but every line earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the remaining burden is parameters, which the description documents for all three. Only a mild gap remains around ordering or pagination semantics for skip/limit.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does document all three parameters. It is especially valuable for status, enumerating seven valid values and the omission behavior; skip and limit are defined but minimally, drawing on the schema defaults.
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 goals') with the optional filter scope made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from get_goal (single fetch) and create_goal/update_goal by the 'list' verb, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'Optionally filtered by status' plus 'Omit for all' implies the when-to-use condition for the filter, which is adequate. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_tasks, get_goal, or other listing tools, and no mention of prerequisites.
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.