tower-mcp

list_claims

List file and symbol claims filtered by repository, branch, or status to see who is editing what and prevent collisions before work starts.

Instructions

List claims, optionally filtered by repo/branch/status.

Tool call template

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_claims"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No
`branch`	No
`repoId`	No
`status`	No
`projectId`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claims`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; the verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read, which is the key trait. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or limits, though the presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the modifiers trailing. Nothing redundant or wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the tool is a simple list operation, lowering the bar. Still, two of five filter parameters are undocumented and there is no guidance on ordering or result size, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only names repo, branch, and status. The repoId and projectId parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description, and no filter semantics (AND vs OR, enum behavior) are explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List claims') and names the filterable fields, which is clear on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as list_tasks or get_decisions, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick this over those.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'optionally filtered by repo/branch/status' implies the use case (browse claims with optional narrowing), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool. Usage is inferable but not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.