List quests across ALL workspaces for this account (not just the connection's default), optionally filtered by status. The account-wide view of open work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | defaults to pending |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only listing operation via 'List' and adds meaningful context about account-wide scope and that it represents 'the account-wide view of open work.' It omits pagination/cost details, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.
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 with zero filler. The core purpose and key scope distinction are front-loaded, and the clarifying context is compact and valuable.
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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to correctly select and invoke it: the entity, the account-wide scope, and the optional status filter. Minor omissions like the default status behavior and alternative tool name are minor because the schema covers the default and the scope contrast already implies the alternative.
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 100%, with the `status` parameter already fully documented by its enum and 'defaults to pending' description. The phrase 'optionally filtered by status' correctly reflects the schema but adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('quests'), and scope ('across ALL workspaces for this account'), with a clear contrast to 'the connection's default.' This differentiates the tool from sibling wyrm_quest_list without needing to inspect either schema.
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 signals when to use it via 'not just the connection's default' and 'account-wide view of open work,' making the broader scope clear. However, it never explicitly names an alternative like wyrm_quest_list or states when NOT to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: wyrm_all_quests vs wyrm_quest_list, wyrm_decision_downstream vs wyrm_decision_trace, and wyrm_recall vs wyrm_search are near-duplicates in behavior. wyrm_capture also overlaps with wyrm_remember, wyrm_truth_set, wyrm_quest_add, and wyrm_decided_because, making it hard for an agent to reliably pick the right tool.
Most names share the wyrm_ prefix and many follow a resource-action pattern like truth_set, quest_list, and failure_record. However, the pattern is broken by names like wyrm_all_quests, wyrm_decided_because, wyrm_context_build, wyrm_remember, and wyrm_capture, mixing noun-first, verb-first, and non-patterned names.
At 31 tools this is above the heavy threshold, and several tools appear redundant or mergeable, such as wyrm_all_quests/quest_list, decision_trace/downstream, capture/remember, and context_build/session_prime. The breadth is real, but the count feels inflated by overlapping entry points rather than distinct capabilities.
The tool surface covers core lifecycles well: quests have add/claim/update/complete/release, failures have record/check/list/resolve, decisions have record/trace/invalidate, and the vault has full get/put/list/delete. The main gaps are the lack of delete/update for memory artifacts and ground truths, and no explicit way to remove stale artifacts.
