list_effortsRetrieve all efforts in a repository, each with its ticket count and the header docs it holds, from the markdown issue tracker.
List the Efforts in a repo, each with its Ticket count and which header docs it holds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Workspace directory. Defaults to $FRONTIER_ROOT, then the session working directory. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the result contains: each Effort's ticket count and header docs. For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, this is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotation.
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?
One compact sentence states the operation, scope, and key output fields with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every element 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?
For a low-complexity, read-only tool with a single optional parameter, this description is complete: it says what the tool returns and where it operates. Since there is no output schema, covering the essential return values in the description is sufficient.
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%, and the single optional 'root' parameter is already described in the schema. The description's mention of 'repo' loosely reinforces that root points at the workspace directory, but it adds no substantial parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Efforts'), scope ('in a repo'), and the returned information ('Ticket count' and 'header docs'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tickets or get_board, which focus on different resources or views.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need a high-level list of Efforts with their ticket counts and header-doc ownership. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, so the guidance is limited to what the purpose statement already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.