List strategies by status to review active, paused, completed, or archived reasoning paths for structured decision-making.
List all strategies, optionally filtered by status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Optional status filter (active, paused, completed, archived) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description itself must establish the tool's behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'all strategies' sets scope, but the description adds no detail about permissions, workspace scope, ordering, or return behavior. Adequate but minimal.
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 states action, object, and optional filter with zero redundancy. 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 simple one-optional-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it communicates the operation, the resource, the optional filter, and implicitly the return of strategies. It is not missing critical information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 100% for the only parameter, status, including its enum values and optionality. The description echoes that status is an optional filter but adds no syntax beyond the schema.
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 'List' with the resource 'all strategies' and the optional status filter, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_strategy or clear_strategy. It states scope precisely and is not a tautology.
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?
It conveys a clear use case—enumerating strategies, optionally by status—but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_strategy or list_trees_by_strategy. The guidance remains implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.