Lists current item claims—optionally only yours—with timing, progress, and stall reasons so you can track sprint work and spot blocked items.
List current item claims, optionally only yours; includes timing, progress and stall reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mine | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| agent_token | No | ||
| client_agent_id | No | ||
| claim_generation | No | ||
| client_session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose that results include timing, progress and stall reasons and that the operation is a listing (read). It omits auth requirements (agent_token/client_session_id), pagination caps, ordering, and what a "stall reason" actually is.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core scope in the first clause and output contents in the second. No wasted words, though the compression is partly what leaves parameters unexplained.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, 7 undocumented parameters, and pagination/auth semantics unexplained. The description tells an agent what it will see but not enough to call it correctly with the identity, generation, or paging parameters.
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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters. The description only maps to one param (mine, via "only yours") and the rest — limit, offset, agent_token, client_agent_id, claim_generation, client_session_id — are undocumented in both schema and description. This leaves a serious gap for a 7-param tool.
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 current item claims") and adds scope detail ("timing, progress and stall reasons"). It implicitly contrasts with the mutation siblings item_claim/item_release, but never names an alternative lister, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
"optionally only yours" gives a usable cue for the mine filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of item_get, overview, or item_progress as alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.