Retrieve all sign-ups created by the authenticated user, including both active and expired ones.
List ALL sign-ups created by the authenticated user (active and expired).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope facts that results span active and expired sign-ups and are limited to the authenticated user's own creations, but says nothing about volume, ordering, or pagination for a potentially large 'ALL' listing.
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?
One sentence, no filler, with the scope qualifier and the active/expired distinction front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the definition covers who, what, and scope. The only minor omission is any hint about result volume/ordering, which matters somewhat for an 'ALL' query with no output schema to describe the return shape.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so no gap exists to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb (list), resource (sign-ups), scope (ALL created by the authenticated user) and explicitly covers both states (active and expired). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling subset tools signupgenius_list_created_active and signupgenius_list_created_expired without needing to name 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 parenthetical '(active and expired)' signals the superset nature, which implicitly routes the agent away from the active-only and expired-only siblings. However, it never explicitly names those alternatives or states when to prefer the narrow variants, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.