List method-card identities and human-review states to track which cards are draft, approved, or retired. Enables offline review of alpha research method cards.
List stored method-card identities and human-review states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cards | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that by saying 'List'. It adds that the result contains identities and human-review states, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior beyond the schema's enum. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence of eight words with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema exists. The description covers what is returned, but the complete lack of parameter guidance leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to use the status filter 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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter meaning. The only parameter, 'status', is not mentioned anywhere in the description. An agent must infer from the enum and default null that it is an optional filter, but the description adds no value beyond the schema itself.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('method-card identities and human-review states'). It is immediately distinct from the sibling tools, which are all run/replay operations, so an agent can tell this is the listing tool without confusion.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The purpose itself implies usage for retrieving method-card listings, but the description does not explain when to choose this over siblings or how the optional status parameter affects the listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.