List current object locks with their handles and timestamps to identify invisible locks that persist after edits.
List the object locks this server currently holds, with their lock handles and when they were taken. Locks are otherwise invisible and outlive the edit that needed them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: locks are server-scoped, include handles and timestamps, and are invisible until inspected. It does not detail output format or authentication needs, but for a simple read-only list this is adequate beyond the annotations.
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?
Two compact sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states what the tool does and what is returned; the second adds a valuable behavioral insight about lock visibility and lifecycle. 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 parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the returned data (handles and timestamps), and the behavioral reason to call it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and no additional explanation is needed.
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 identifies the exact resource ('object locks this server currently holds') and uses a specific verb ('List'), explaining that it returns lock handles and acquisition times. This clearly separates it from other lock-related sibling tools like lock, unLock, and unlockAll.
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?
No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, but the description provides clear context: locks are otherwise invisible and outlive the edit that needed them, which tells an agent when this inspection tool is useful. Since there is no competing list-locks sibling, this contextual guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.