results_listList session-stored analysis results newest first, showing ID, tool, model, row count, timestamps, and risk so you can inspect and manage generated outputs.
List the results stored in this session, newest first: result_id, tool, model, row count, created and expiry time, and risk.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: the sort order ('newest first') and the exact set of fields returned, which is important because there is no output schema.
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 a colon-delimited field list; nothing is wasted and the key action and ordering come first. The field enumeration is dense but justified since no output schema exists to carry that 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-argument, read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, ordering, and return fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. It does not mention pagination limits or how long the session's result set persists, which is a minor gap given the 'created and expiry time' field.
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 takes no parameters (empty NoArgs schema, 100% coverage), so by the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to document.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('results stored in this session'), with scope and ordering ('newest first') and an enumeration of returned fields. It clearly distinguishes the read-only inventory role from siblings like results_query and results_sample, though it never names them outright.
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 results stored in this session' and 'newest first', which signals an inventory/discovery use case. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not route the agent between results_list, results_query, results_sample, or results_describe.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.