Retrieve bounded metadata for retained tool results, optionally filtered by investigation or exact operation, without analyzing data or contacting a device.
List bounded retained tool-result metadata. Optionally filter by investigation and exact operation; no analysis or device contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context that results are bounded/retained metadata and that the tool performs no analysis or device contact. It does not explain pagination behavior, retention limits, or what the metadata records contain.
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?
The description is two compact clauses with the core action front-loaded. Every phrase adds information or a constraint, with no filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 list tool with rich safety annotations, the description is adequate at a high level. However, with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, it leaves important details missing: what metadata fields are returned, how limit/offset behave, and what 'bounded retained' means in practice.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only loosely covers two filters: 'investigation' for project_id and 'exact operation' for operation. It does not explain limit, offset, pagination bounds, or defaults. The mapping from 'investigation' to project_id is also not explicit.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: list retained tool-result metadata. It also clarifies that this is metadata-only, with no analysis or device contact, which meaningfully separates it from content-reading siblings like read_evidence. It does not explicitly name or compare against the closest sibling, so it stops 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?
The description says filters are optional and rules out analysis/device contact, but it does not state when an agent should choose this tool over read_evidence or other list tools. There is no positive usage context or alternative-selection guidance, leaving the agent to infer the scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.