list_chainsList fix-and-retry chains for failed GitHub Actions workflows, optionally filtering by state to monitor and manage retry attempts.
List fix-and-retry chains, optionally filtered by state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that filtering by state is optional, but doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, pagination, or any side effects. For a list operation this is a moderate gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the key optional filter. No wasted words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no mention of valid state values or read-only behavior, an agent might not know what states are available or whether this is a safe read operation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention the 'state' parameter and that it's an optional filter, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't specify valid state values or the effect of null/default, leaving the agent to infer.
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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('fix-and-retry chains'), and mentions an optional filter by state. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_chain (singular) and retry_now/pause_chain/resume_chain (actions on a chain), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 implies this is the listing/read tool for chains, and the optional state filter suggests when it might be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs get_chain, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.