List read-only ticket headers from one lifecycle category, such as INBOX, ACTIONABLE, QUEUED, BLOCKED, WAITING, USER, PARKED, or SOLVED, with an optional result limit.
List tickets in one lifecycle category (INBOX/ACTIONABLE/QUEUED/BLOCKED/WAITING/USER/PARKED/SOLVED) -- header fields only, read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| category | Yes | Category filter or category to store. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.29Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that only header fields are returned and that the operation is read-only, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit defaults to 50, what happens beyond it), ordering, or whether empty categories error out.
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 tight sentence with the read-only and header-only caveats front-loaded after the core action. Nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to state that only header fields come back, but an agent still lacks ordering, pagination, and error behavior for the required category parameter.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the notion of 'lifecycle category' but does not clarify limit semantics or what 'header fields' means for the returned objects.
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 (List) and resource (tickets) scoped to one lifecycle category, and enumerates the valid categories inline. It implicitly distinguishes itself from hb_ticket_show by declaring 'header fields only', though it never names that sibling.
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 the category enumeration and the 'header fields only' qualifier, but the description never states when to prefer this over hb_ticket_show or what categories mean operationally. No explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.