List stored agent traces with names, statuses, and timestamps to inspect MCP workflow activity, optionally limiting results to recent entries.
List all stored traces with their names, statuses, and timestamps. Example: { "limit": 10 } to get the 10 most recent traces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of traces to return (most recent first). Example: 20. Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned field set and 'most recent first' ordering, but the ordering is already in the schema and no further behavior (rate limits, auth) is disclosed.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a usage example. Slightly redundant with the schema's own example but still efficient.
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?
A simple read-only list tool with no output schema; the description adequately conveys the returned content and default ordering. Completeness would improve with brief alternative routing, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.
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 100% with a single documented 'limit' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's example merely restates the limit value without adding new semantics.
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 and resource ('List all stored traces') and enumerates the returned fields (names, statuses, timestamps). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_trace_summary or compare_traces.
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 example ({ "limit": 10 }) implies usage but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or conditions selecting this over sibling tools such as get_trace_summary or export_otel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.