Identify unresolved delegations in a repository that have neither been accepted nor discarded, enabling quick review of pending coding tasks.
List delegations in this repository that have not been accepted or discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the useful scoping constraint of pending delegations but does not detail return format or pagination; for a simple read-only listing this is acceptable.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and filter are immediately clear, and every word 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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with a defined output schema and a clear description of what is returned, no additional invocation-critical information is missing. The tool is simple enough that this description is self-contained.
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 0%, and the description does not explain repo_path, its expected format, or why it is optional. The parameter name and default provide some clue, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema detail.
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?
States the specific verb 'List', the resource 'delegations', and the scope 'in this repository' with a clear status filter: 'not been accepted or discarded.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept and discard.
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 clearly implies this tool is for viewing pending delegations before accepting or discarding them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the status filter gives sufficient usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.