lore-mcp

investigation_list

Retrieve a list of investigation threads, optionally filtered by topic, to track and manage knowledge work.

Instructions

List investigations

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": "investigation_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.8.5May 28, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / topic / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / topic / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / topic / description
```
Removed value: -"Filter by topic"
```
removedInput schema / properties / topic / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object",
+  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}

First observedv0.7.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention output format, pagination, filtering, or any constraints. The presence of an output schema is not acknowledged.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely concise but at the cost of being under-specified. Effective conciseness requires conveying necessary information efficiently, which is absent here.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero annotations, one optional parameter, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not address any of the agent's likely uncertainties.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'topic' parameter. No added value beyond the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is 'List investigations', a tautology of the tool name 'investigation_list'. It does not provide any additional context or differentiation from sibling tools like investigation_list_experiments.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., investigation_list_experiments, investigation_get). The description offers no context for decision-making.

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