List active (unresolved) failures for this account, the current 'do not repeat' set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | Project/workspace to scope to (defaults to this connection's workspace; isolates work streams within your account) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| failures | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "failures": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "target": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "scope",
+ "target",
+ "description"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "failures"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}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 results are filtered to 'active (unresolved)' failures and frames them as a 'do not repeat' set, which conveys intent. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how the resolved set is excluded, so gaps remain.
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 compact sentence with the key scoping qualifier front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'do not repeat set' aside is slightly informal rather than purely functional.
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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and filtering adequately. The only missing element is explicit routing against the six sibling failure/quest tools.
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 the single workspace parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 (active/unresolved failures) scoped to the account, and the parenthetical 'unresolved' narrows the meaning beyond just 'failures'. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from its close siblings wyrm_failure_check, wyrm_failure_record, or wyrm_failure_resolve.
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 a read use case via 'the current do-not-repeat set,' but gives no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as wyrm_failure_check or wyrm_failure_resolve. An agent must infer the choice from names alone.
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.