List quests, optionally filtered by status and/or workspace. Shows each quest's id; at most 50 unless a limit is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 50 | |
| status | No | ||
| 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 | ||
| total | Yes | ||
| quests | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "quests": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "priority": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "workspace": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "title",
+ "priority",
+ "status",
+ "workspace"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "pending",
+ "completed",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "count",
+ "total",
+ "quests"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Default 50",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the result is capped at 50 unless a limit is given. It does not state read-only semantics, ordering, or what happens when status is omitted (the schema enum includes 'all', suggesting a default).
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action and its scoping stated first and the pagination caveat second. Every clause 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers filtering and the result cap, leaving only minor gaps such as default status behavior and how it relates to wyrm_all_quests.
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 67%, so the schema covers part of the surface (workspace has a full description, limit just 'Default 50'). The description adds the cap behavior tied to limit and names the status/workspace filters, but adds nothing about the status enum values or default behavior. Baseline 3 fits.
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 quests) plus the optional filters, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling wyrm_all_quests, which sounds like a near-synonym.
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 'optionally filtered by status and/or workspace' implies when the filters are useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over wyrm_all_quests or how the two differ. Usage is left to inference.
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.