Retrieve tickets awaiting human review, ordered by urgency, with category, route, model confidence, and summary. Filter by priority like P1.
Tickets waiting for human review, most urgent first, with category, route, model confidence and a short summary. Optional priority filter like "P1".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| priority | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the sorting order ('most urgent first') and the returned fields, which is useful context beyond annotations, but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or pagination behavior.
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 sentences, tightly written, front-loading the core purpose followed by the return shape and optional filter. No wasted words.
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?
With an output schema present, return value explanation isn't required, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits parameter format details (e.g., valid priority values) and does not explain pagination or result limits, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke 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% and the single parameter 'priority' has no description in the schema. The description mentions 'Optional priority filter like "P1"', which provides a concrete example value and clarifies the parameter's purpose, but lacks format details or enum alternatives. Given low coverage, more compensation is expected.
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 a specific verb+resource: tickets waiting for human review, returning urgent-first with category, route, model confidence and a short summary. This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like queue_status, recent_decisions, and search_decisions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 implies usage (waiting for human review) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The priority filter mention is a usage hint, but the guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.