List findings from every execution of a monitor to debug issues and analyze agent behavior.
List findings produced by a monitor across all of its executions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | opaque pagination token from previous response next_cursor; pass through unchanged |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful scoping (across all executions) but does not explain pagination behavior, cursor usage, or other execution/result traits.
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 that clearly states the action, resource, and scope with no filler. Every clause adds meaning.
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?
Reasonable for a simple read-only list tool, but since there is no output schema, return format and pagination are left largely unexplained. The description gives enough for a first call but is not fully self-sufficient.
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 only 33%. The description does not directly explain that id is the monitor ID or clarify what limit controls, leaving two of three parameters under-documented and under-compensated.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List findings produced by a monitor across all of its executions." It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like invariance_finding_list and invariance_monitor_executions.
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?
Usage context is implied: call this when findings generated by a monitor across multiple executions are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is adequate but not strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.