term_listLists recorded glossary terms for a group or project to audit terminology coverage and review captured vocabulary.
List recorded glossary terms in a group (optionally scoped to a project). Use to audit coverage or review what terminology has been captured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Specific group, or omit for all groups. | |
| limit | No | Max terms. Default 200. | |
| project | No | Restrict to a project, or omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is settled. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, no pagination/truncation behavior beyond the schema's limit cap, no indication of what a term record contains, and no statement that empty groups return an empty list.
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 the operation stated first and the purpose second; nothing is redundant. It could be tightened slightly by merging the scope and use-case into one clause, but there is no padding.
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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description should have said what a listed term looks like (name, definition, project) so the agent knows what it gets back.
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 coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, including defaults and max limits. The description corroborates group and project scoping but adds no format hints or guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List recorded glossary terms") plus scoping by group and optional project, which is enough to distinguish it from a search or write tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling term_search, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
"Use to audit coverage or review what terminology has been captured" gives an intended scenario but no exclusions or alternatives. An agent facing both term_list and term_search is left to infer that list is for enumeration and search is for lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.