mcp-devils-advocate

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_reviews

List all review sessions—active, complete, or abandoned—with claim snippets, status, phases, and timestamps. Retrieve session history and data directory in one call.

Instructions

List every review session (active, complete, and abandoned).

Returns: dict with 'count', 'reviews' (id, claim snippet, mode, status, current phase, timestamps; newest first), the data directory, and 'skipped' for any file in it that is not a valid review.

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_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it delivers real behavioral detail: all statuses are included, ordering is newest-first, the returned keys are enumerated, and it discloses a 'skipped' bucket for invalid files. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a pure read this is good disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a structured Returns block; no filler. Slightly verbose in the return detail but every element earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing the return shape (count, reviews fields, data directory, skipped) is exactly the right compensation. No annotations or params to cover. It stops short of stating guarantees like pagination or permission requirements, but is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or argument is required.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List every review session') and scopes it with 'active, complete, and abandoned', which implicitly separates it from get_review (single) and the mutating siblings start_review/abandon_review. It does not name a sibling outright, but the enumeration of statuses makes the breadth clear.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the enumeration entry point versus get_review for a single session, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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

Deploy Server