Show tracked threads with lane, status, age, and cadence to review open loops and maintain context. Optionally include closed threads.
List tracked threads with lane, status, last-touched age and cadence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_closed | 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 burden, and it does disclose the returned attribute set (lane, status, age, cadence). However, it says nothing about the read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or how the default closed-thread filtering behaves.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the returned fields with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the undisclosed parameter.
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, and for a simple list tool the bare description is minimally viable. The gaps are the default filtering behavior of include_closed and any guidance on choosing this tool over the other list_* siblings.
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 0% and the single parameter include_closed is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'tracked threads' gives no clue that closed threads are excluded by default, so the agent must infer the parameter's meaning from the schema name alone.
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?
Specific verb (List) + resource (tracked threads) plus the fields surfaced (lane, status, last-touched age, cadence). It clearly reads as a read operation and is distinguishable from the write siblings (track_thread, touch_thread), though it never names them explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as list_entities, list_constraints or walk_trail, and no conditions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.