List journaled tool calls newest first with IDs and digests, so agents can audit reverse-engineering steps. Use the limit option to control how many entries return.
List journaled tool calls (newest first) with ids and digests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: results are ordered newest-first and include ids and digests. However it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor how the 'limit' bounds the result set or what happens when the journal exceeds it.
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 no filler; the parenthetical ordering note earns its place by telling the agent what the first result is.
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 one-parameter, likely read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (ids and digests) and in what order, which is enough for correct invocation. The gap is the undocumented limit parameter, the only structured input.
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% and the description never mentions the single 'limit' parameter, its default of 50, or its semantics (max entries returned?). The schema names the field but supplies no title-level meaning, so the description fails to compensate.
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 journaled tool calls') plus scope details (newest-first ordering, ids and digests). It clearly contrasts with the sibling evidence_read by describing listing rather than reading, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this vs. evidence_read (the obvious companion tool for fetching the actual record). The ordering hint ('newest first') implies a discovery-then-read workflow but the description leaves the agent to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.