list_eventsRead the authenticated owner's durable event Inbox after an optional cursor.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_events"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states owner scoping, durability, and cursor-based pagination, but it omits ordering, consistency guarantees, rate limits, and any limits on how many events are returned.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, although its brevity contributes to missing operational details.
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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the response shape, ordering, pagination limits, or how the limit parameter affects results.
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 needs to explain both parameters. It clarifies that "after" is an optional cursor, but it says nothing about "limit," including its default of 50 and maximum of 100, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb, "Read," and a clear resource, "durable event Inbox," scoped to the authenticated owner. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools, which focus on payments, wallets, contracts, and locations, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 "after an optional cursor" implies paginated inbox reading, but the description does not state when an agent should use this tool versus other listing tools or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.
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.