View all pending friend requests, both sent and received, to track and manage connection statuses in one place.
List pending friend requests (sent and received)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying 'pending' and 'sent and received', narrowing the scope beyond what the tool name alone conveys. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or what data is returned.
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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it tells the agent exactly what will be listed. No output schema exists, but the simple nature of the operation means no additional invocation guidance is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set, and the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('pending friend requests') with an explicit scope ('sent and received'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_friends, which presumably lists established friends rather than pending requests.
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 implies the tool is used when the agent needs to retrieve pending friend requests, including both sent and received. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like list_friends, or mention any filtering or response behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.