Retrieve stored records newest first, filtered by kind or ISO date range, to inspect durable memory and history.
List records, newest first, optionally by kind and ISO date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals ordering ('newest first'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, side effects, permissions, pagination, or what the returned set's bounds are – thin coverage for a no-annotation tool.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then the optional filters. Zero waste; every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and a 50-default limit that is never referenced, the definition leaves an agent guessing about result-set size and pagination behavior.
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% and the schema only carries titles. The description gives meaning to kind and an ISO format hint for the date range, but 'limit' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, and valid 'kind' values remain unspecified.
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 (List) and resource (records), plus two behavioral facts: default ordering (newest first) and the optional filters. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_entities, list_constraints, or list_friction, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied by 'optionally by kind and ISO date range' – an agent can infer that calling with no arguments lists everything. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus log_record or the other list_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.