Retrieve all saved searches configured in the SEQ logging server to monitor and analyze log events.
List all configured signals (saved searches) in SEQ
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_signals"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List all configured signals') but doesn't describe traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'configured signals' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a system's saved searches.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
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?
Given the complexity of listing saved searches in a system like SEQ, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full scope, such as the format of returned signals or any system-specific constraints.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description implies no parameters are needed by stating 'List all configured signals', which aligns with the schema. This provides adequate semantic context, though it doesn't add extra details beyond the schema's emptiness.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all configured signals (saved searches) in SEQ'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event', which might also retrieve signal-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.