Retrieve ideas filtered by project, status, category, or priority to find the notes you need. Returns open ideas by default so agents can review a project's pending work.
List ideas filtered by project, status (default open), category and priority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | open | |
| project | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| priority | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the default status of 'open' (already present in the schema) but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, permissions, rate limits, or other operational traits.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The filtering dimensions are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
Given the low complexity, an existing output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the filtering purpose but lacks any usage guidance, parameter value semantics, and behavioral context that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names all four parameters and notes the default for status, which is a minimal mapping, but it does not explain allowed values, formats, or what each filter really means beyond their names.
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 and resource: list ideas, and enumerates the filtering dimensions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_ideas, leaving ambiguity about whether this is the right tool when a search is intended.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_ideas or record_idea. It implies a filtered-listing use case but offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.