NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

list_tool_proposals

List and filter tool proposals by status and limit to review the lifecycle of proposed changes in your AI workflow.

Instructions

List all tool proposals with optional filtering.

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_tool_proposals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of proposals to return
`status`	No	Filter by status (Proposed, Approved, Implemented, Rejected)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic operation ('List') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any permissions needed, pagination behavior, or ordering. The word 'List' implies non-mutation, but this is not explicit.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that conveys the essential function and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a simple list tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema present. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case and invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like whether it scopes to a project/incarnation are not critical given the simplicity and existing schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, status) are already well-documented. The description's phrase 'optional filtering' adds minimal context by indicating that status is the filter, but it does not add any detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tool proposals') and clarifies scope with 'all' and 'optional filtering'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool_proposal (single proposal) and propose_tool (create).

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?

The phrase 'List all tool proposals' implies the tool is for retrieving a collection of proposals, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_tool_proposal for a single proposal'). Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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