Escalate Anything

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List cases

case_list

Read-only

Retrieve locally logged escalation cases and filter them by status—open, closed, or all—to track complaints and follow-ups.

Instructions

Cases in the local log. status: open, closed, or null for all.

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": "case_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No		open

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only and closed-world, and the description mostly restates the local-log scope. It adds little behavioral context beyond the status filter, such as ordering, pagination, or whether the result is bounded.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition is very concise and front-loads the resource scope before the status semantics. The sentence-fragment style is efficient, though it borders on being too terse to fully orient an agent.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, this covers the basic resource and filter semantics. It still leaves gaps around the default status, result ordering or pagination, and when to choose it over case_get.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single status parameter has no schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It usefully defines the accepted values ('open', 'closed') and explains that null means all, though it omits the default of 'open' that appears in the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource ('Cases') and scope ('local log'), but does not state an explicit action such as 'list' or 'retrieve'. It relies on the tool name and title to convey that this is a listing operation, and it does not differentiate from siblings like case_get.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains the status values but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. It does not say when an agent should call case_list instead of case_get or another case-related sibling.

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