Retrieve validated canonical REVIEW facts with optional filters for sender, decision, kind, subject, and pagination; listing does not grant authorization.
List validated canonical REVIEW facts; listing grants no authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sender | No | ||
| decision | No | ||
| review_kind | No | ||
| subject_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Input schema / properties / decision / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / decision / defaultPrevious value: -""New value: +nullInput schema / properties / decision / descriptionRemoved value: -"Filter by decision value (``approved`` / ``rejected``\n/ ``needs_changes`` / ``abstained`` / ``needs_human``)."Input schema / properties / decision / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / properties / limit / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / limit / defaultPrevious value: -0New value: +nullInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionRemoved value: -"Maximum number of rows (0 = no limit)."Input schema / properties / limit / typeRemoved value: -"integer"Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionRemoved value: -"Skip this many rows."Input schema / properties / review_kindAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / reviewer_roleRemoved value: -{
- "default": "",
- "description": "Filter by reviewer role code.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / senderAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / statusRemoved value: -{
- "default": "open",
- "description": "``open`` (default) / ``archived`` / ``all``.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / subject_refAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}Input schema / properties / subject_typeRemoved value: -{
- "default": "",
- "description": "Filter by subject type (``task`` / ``report`` /\n``role_switch`` / ``code_change``).",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv3.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: results are limited to validated/canonical records, and the act of listing confers no authorization. It still omits whether this is strictly read-only, pagination/ordering behavior, and how multiple filters combine, leaving material gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 tightly written clause pair with the resource scope front-loaded ahead of the authorization caveat. No filler, though the compressed phrasing borders on cryptic.
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?
Six undocumented filter parameters, no annotations, and no output schema leave the agent without enough information to use filters correctly or understand what comes back. The description should at minimum explain the filter dimensions and the result shape/pagination.
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% across six parameters (limit, offset, sender, decision, review_kind, subject_ref), and the description mentions none of them. An agent gets no help on what `decision` values look like, what `subject_ref` points at, or what defaults mean; only the phrase "REVIEW facts" vaguely hints at the domain.
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?
Uses a specific verb ("List") bound to a specific resource ("validated canonical REVIEW facts"), which separates it from the singular reader read_review and from list_reports/list_issues. The jargon "canonical facts" is unusual but the intent (enumerate validated review records) is inferable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with read_review.
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 only guidance is the caveat "listing grants no authorization," which says what the output does NOT do but never says when to choose this tool over read_review or how to pick among filters. An agent must guess the intended use case and retrieval strategy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.