hamgoose

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mission_list

List all missions stored in a repository to review their structured plans, statuses, and validation results, supporting goal-driven orchestration.

Instructions

List all missions in the repository.

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": "mission_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation and 'all missions in the repository' conveys scope, but it does not mention optional repo behavior, pagination, permissions, or any other side-effect details. The output schema covers return structure, so that omission is less critical.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it relies on the schema and output schema for additional detail.

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?

The description plus the available output schema provide a minimally usable picture for a simple list tool. However, the optional repo parameter is unexplained, and the lack of sibling differentiation means an agent cannot fully determine when mission_list is the correct choice among the many mission_* tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for the optional repo parameter, and the description does not explain how to use it, what values are valid, or what the default of null means. The word 'repository' provides a loose hint that the repo parameter identifies the repository, but it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the operation ('List') and the resource ('missions'), and adds the scoping phrase 'all ... in the repository'. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by the list verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like mission_status or mission_plan_view.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over the many sibling mission_* tools, and it mentions no alternatives or exclusions. The imperative 'List' implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer when this is the right tool.

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