NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

list_tool_requests

List tool requests using optional filters for status, priority, and limit, enabling quick review of submissions.

Instructions

List all tool requests 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_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of requests to return
`status`	No	Filter by status (Submitted, In Review, Implemented, Rejected)
`priority`	No	Filter by priority (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 transparency. It merely says 'List all tool requests' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or potential side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the key information. It is efficient and easy to understand, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 list tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any elaboration on ordering, default behavior, or access constraints, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations. It completes the task but doesn't exceed expectations.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for limit, status, and priority. The description only mentions 'optional filtering' without elaborating on the parameters, so it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists tool requests with optional filtering, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_tool_proposals or get_tool_request, but the mention of 'all' and 'optional filtering' gives it reasonable specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_tool_request for a specific request or list_tool_proposals for proposals. It simply states what it does without any exclusions or contextual hints.

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