List initiatives with no blocking dependencies, ordered by prerequisites, so AI agents can pick up available work now.
Initiatives that are designed with nothing blocking — what an agent can pick up now — in suggested order (prerequisites first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| collection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: results are only unblocked initiatives and they are returned in prerequisite order, which affects how the agent consumes them. It says nothing about filtering, pagination, or result volume.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately qualified by the actionable-scope clause and ordering. There is no padding, though the em-dash construction is slightly denser than necessary.
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 read-only query tool with two entirely undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description should at minimum explain what 'type' and 'collection' filter and hint at the shape of the returned list; as written, an agent has to guess on both inputs and outputs.
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 0% and there are two parameters ('type' and 'collection'), yet the description mentions neither. It provides no syntax, allowed values, or meaning for either filter, so an agent cannot know whether these narrow the results or how to supply them.
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?
The description states a specific resource (unblocked initiatives) and the ordering (prerequisites first), making it clear this returns work that is currently actionable. However, there is no explicit verb and it never names or contrasts itself with plausible siblings like 'list', 'graph', or 'next_question'. The phrase 'designed with nothing blocking' is slightly ambiguous, but the parenthetical 'what an agent can pick up now' resolves it.
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?
Usage is implied by 'what an agent can pick up now', which tells the agent this is the tool for finding actionable work. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as 'list' (all items) or 'next_question', leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.