List shared key-value entries from hive memory, optionally filtered by key prefix to retrieve only relevant values for coordination between sessions.
List shared values, optionally filtered by key prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | ||
| project_id | No | Different project override. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for another project by name; otherwise stay in the current scope, even when results are empty. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description presents this purely as a read/enumeration operation ('List shared values'). The description offers no acknowledgment of the surprising destructive/non-read-only behavior, leaving the contradiction unexplained.
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 the primary action first and the modifier second. Nothing is wasted and it is appropriately sized for a two-parameter list 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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate, but the unexplained destructive annotation and the undocumented prefix param leave real gaps. An agent cannot fully predict the tool's side effects or filtering behavior.
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 coverage is 50%: project_id carries a strong inline description, while prefix is undocumented in the schema and only implied by the description's 'filtered by key prefix'. The description compensates marginally for the prefix gap but adds no format or matching semantics (e.g. exact vs prefix match behavior).
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') and resource ('shared values') with the optional prefix filter, so the agent knows it enumerates key-value entries. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling kv_get (single-value fetch), though 'List' vs 'Get' is fairly self-evident.
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 only guidance is 'optionally filtered by key prefix' — there is no statement of when to use this versus kv_get or the other kv_* siblings, and no mention of scope or prerequisites. The agent gets context only by inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.