Retrieve summaries of research sessions, optionally filtered by project ID, to review progress and plans from the local Open Science application.
List session summaries, optionally scoped to a project ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance by specifying 'summaries', implying the tool returns condensed data rather than full session details. However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, or filtering behavior beyond the project scoping. With annotations covering the major traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('List session summaries') and the optional modifier. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the purpose, the optional scoping, and implies summary-level output. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema to elaborate on.
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 schema provides no description for project_id (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains it as an optional scoping filter by project. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare string type, though it does not elaborate on the exact semantics of 'project' or whether multiple projects can be specified. Still, it compensates well for the schema gap.
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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('session summaries'), and an optional scoping condition ('scoped to a project ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session (singular retrieval) and list_projects (different entity type), leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 clearly conveys when to use the tool (to list session summaries) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or routing to sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.