Waggle-mcp

list_context_scopes

List known agent, project, and session scopes in the current tenant graph to filter memory by scope. Returns arrays of scope identifiers.

Instructions

List known agent, project, and session scope values stored in the current tenant graph. Use before filtering memory by scope. Returns arrays of scope identifiers.

Tool call template

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_context_scopes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool lists values and returns arrays, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, potential delays) are disclosed. Adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all essential, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains what it does, why to use it, and what it returns (arrays of scope identifiers). No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline is 4 according to the rules, and the description does not need to add param meaning. It appropriately omits param details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'scope values' (agent, project, session). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the context (current tenant graph) and the return type (arrays of scope identifiers).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use before filtering memory by scope.' This provides clear context on when to invoke this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is helpful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.