List bounded MAGNA Knowledge Ledger objects by type, visibility lane, and limit. Sealed or restricted items return only commitments and public summaries.
List bounded MAGNA Knowledge Ledger objects. SEALED/RESTRICTED objects expose commitments and public summaries only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| object_type | No | ||
| visibility_lane | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: SEALED/RESTRICTED objects only expose commitments and public summaries. It does not cover pagination behavior, default/cap on limit, or ordering.
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 tight sentences with the visibility caveat front-loaded after the core action. No filler, though the second sentence could better clarify what "commitments and public summaries" means.
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 no explanation, but the description leaves all three filter parameters and any sibling-routing guidance undocumented. Adequate as a minimum-viable list tool, not complete.
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 three parameters (limit, object_type, visibility_lane), yet the description explains none of them. It does not say what visibility_lane values exist or what object_type strings are valid, so the schema gap is not compensated.
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 clear verb (List) and resource (MAGNA Knowledge Ledger objects), which distinguishes it from the create/relate/get siblings in the knowledge family. However, the modifier "bounded" is unexplained jargon that adds ambiguity rather than precision.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as agora_knowledge_search, agora_knowledge_fetch, or agora_get_knowledge_lineage, all of which are plausible overlapping list/retrieve paths. The agent must guess which entry point to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.