Find all decision trees associated with a specific strategy. Provide a strategy ID or name to retrieve its complete list of trees for review or analysis.
List all trees belonging to a strategy (by ID or name)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strategyIdOrName | Yes | The ID or name of the strategy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and parameter, without disclosing details like pagination, ordering, matching rules (case sensitivity, partial matches), whether it returns tree IDs or full objects, or error behavior if the strategy is not found. It adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.
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, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have been slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so minimal description may suffice. However, given the crowded sibling context (list_trees, list_trees_by_session, move_tree_to_strategy, etc.), the description leaves ambiguity about what 'belongs to a strategy' means (e.g., direct children vs. all descendants) and the return format. It is adequate but not complete.
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?
The schema describes the parameter as 'The ID or name of the strategy' at 100% coverage. The description repeats the same idea ('by ID or name') without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already covers the parameter.
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') and resource ('trees belonging to a strategy'), with a clarifying parenthetical '(by ID or name)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trees (all trees) and list_trees_by_session (by session). The agent can easily tell what this tool does.
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 the use case: when you want trees filtered by a strategy identifier or name. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_trees or list_trees_by_session. The usage context is clear but not formally routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.