List pending podcast edit decisions by project, reason prefix, or review status; use the applied edits tool for archived approved edits.
List pending decisions; use list_applied_edits_tool for archived approved edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applied | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| reason_prefix | No | ||
| review_required | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond the output scope. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or how the 'applied'/'review_required' filters alter what is returned — notable for a tool whose own description says 'pending' while an 'applied' filter exists.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the sibling routing clause follows the scoping statement. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the four filters unexplained. For a query tool with several optional filters, the agent is not equipped to use it well.
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% across four parameters (applied, project_path, reason_prefix, review_required), and the description explains none of them. The distinction between 'pending' in the prose and the 'applied' boolean in the schema is left entirely unresolved.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pending decisions'), and explicitly names the sibling list_applied_edits_tool as the route for archived approved edits. The only weakness is that 'decisions' is somewhat abstract, but the pending-vs-archived contrast does real discrimination work.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent when to use the other tool ('use list_applied_edits_tool for archived approved edits'), which implies this tool is for the pending/unfiltered case. It stops short of naming prerequisites or clarifying when the filters (applied, review_required) would be wanted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.