Waggle-mcp

list_context_windows

List context windows for a project to inspect chat/session-level memory containers, their status, node counts, and update times.

Instructions

List context windows for a project. Use to inspect chat/session-level memory containers, their status, node counts, and update times.

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_windows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of context windows to return.
`status`	No	Optional status filter for returned windows.
`project`	No	Optional project/repository scope to filter windows.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.10Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions return fields (status, node counts, update times) but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'inspect' but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states core action, second adds useful detail about what the tool returns. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and output fields (status, node counts, update times). Could be improved by explicitly noting 'returns a list of context windows' and that parameters are filters, but overall complete for a listing tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it does not explain that 'project' and 'status' are optional filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already clarifies parameters.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'context windows', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'get_context_window' (singular) and 'close_context_window'. Also specifies the scope 'for a project' and the data fields (status, node counts, update times).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description states 'Use to inspect chat/session-level memory containers', which implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like 'get_context_window' for a single window or 'close_context_window' for closing. The guidance is implicit but not directive.

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