list_project_feedbackList page-anchored feedback for project versions, showing attribution to humans or external agents. Optionally include resolved feedback.
Read page-anchored review feedback for versions in a project, with explicit human or external-agent attribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | 2ools project ID. | |
| include_resolved | No | Include feedback already marked resolved. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only, effect-free operation. The description adds that the feedback is 'page-anchored' and 'review feedback' with attribution – context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or error/edge-case behavior (e.g., what if the project has no versions). Annotations cover the core, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence that packs the key aspects: read-only, scoped to versions, anchored to pages, with explicit attribution. No filler, every word adds value.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description provides sufficient context: the scope (project versions, page-anchored, attribution type). It misses only minor details like return format or whether it includes unresolved by default (the default for include_resolved is already in the schema). Only minor gaps remain, so a 4 fits.
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%, meaning the schema already describes both parameters ('project_id' and 'include_resolved'). The description does not add additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 specific verbs ('Read'), identifies the resource ('page-anchored review feedback for versions in a project'), and clarifies the attribution type ('explicit human or external-agent'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_project_feedback or resolve_project_feedback, which are write/update operations.
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 usage: use when you need to read feedback with explicit attribution. The sibling context includes add_project_feedback, resolve_project_feedback, and many read tools, but the description does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives. Still, the differentiation is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.