chainsaw_result_listLists stored result handles newest first, showing tool, inputs, and row counts so agents can page through large detection summaries without loading raw logs.
List stored result handles, newest first, with tool, inputs and row counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Entries per page. | |
| offset | No | First entry to return. | |
| max_bytes | No | Encoded JSON byte budget, including metadata. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), so the description need not repeat that. It usefully adds the ordering and the metadata returned per handle, but does not mention pagination behavior or the max_bytes truncation budget.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the essential action, ordering, and returned metadata.
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 list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is listed, the ordering, and the visible metadata. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly address pagination or the byte-budget behavior, though the schema covers those details.
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 100%, and the schema already explains limit, offset, and max_bytes in enough detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 (List) and resource (stored result handles), plus the ordering (newest first) and included metadata (tool, inputs, row counts). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like chainsaw_result_page or chainsaw_result_summary.
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 states what is listed but gives no when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives such as chainsaw_result_page, chainsaw_result_summary, or chainsaw_result_fields. An agent must infer the selection context from the tool name and sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.