Check active file claims to see who is working on what, enabling safe delegation of tasks.
Query who is currently working on what. Returns active file claims, useful for orchestrator agents deciding what to delegate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter_by_file | No | Only return claims affecting this file | |
| include_expired | No | Include expired claims (default false) | |
| filter_by_session | No | Only return claims from this session |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.0v1.8.4v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only operation through 'Query' and states the return type ('active file claims'). It does not detail expired-claim behavior or output structure, but it is not misleading and covers the core behavior.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core query action and immediately states the result type and use case, making every sentence valuable.
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 read-only tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, return concept, and usage context. The schema fully documents parameters. It does not describe edge cases like expiration or result ordering, but those are not essential for basic invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three optional parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, placing it at the baseline of 3.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Query') and names the resource ('active file claims'), while explaining the intended use for orchestrator delegation. It is distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like claim_files and release_files because it is explicitly a read-only lookup, though it does not name those alternatives.
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 description gives clear context for when to use it: 'useful for orchestrator agents deciding what to delegate.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for a simple read query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.