operations_listList readable durable operations filtered by cluster RBAC, including the global collection, so you can inspect only authorized database operations.
List readable durable operations
Filters every operation by its cluster RBAC object, including the global collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| phase | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| cluster | No | ||
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to supplement. It does add that results are filtered by cluster RBAC object and include the global collection, which is genuine context, but it says nothing about pagination via limit/cursor or what 'durable' means in practice.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scoping rule; no filler. The repetition of the title as the first line is mildly redundant but harmless.
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?
A paginated list tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of page size limits, cursor iteration, or valid phase values. The RBAC filtering note is helpful but far from what an agent needs to call this correctly.
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% for five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: limit, cursor, phase, cluster and namespace are never mentioned. The phrase 'cluster RBAC object' only loosely gestures at the cluster parameter's meaning.
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 ... operations') and adds a scope qualifier ('durable', RBAC-readable), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from near siblings such as operation_get or cluster_operations_list, so an agent must infer the difference.
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 this list should be preferred over operation_get or cluster_operations_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Only the implicit 'listing' semantics of the name convey usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.