List a run's articles and their screening, fetch, and wiki statuses to monitor review progress and filter results.
List a run's articles with their screening, fetch, and wiki status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| run_id | Yes | Run ID from start_search | |
| decision | No | ||
| wiki_status | No | ||
| fetch_status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include screening/fetch/wiki status fields, but omits any pagination or filter behavior despite limit/offset existing in the 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?
One sentence, front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool with filterable enums.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 6 parameters, low schema coverage, and undocumented filter enums, the description leaves the agent guessing about filterability and pagination of this list operation.
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 coverage is only 17% – just run_id is documented. The description hints that screening (decision), fetch_status, and wiki_status appear in results but never states they can be used as filters, and limit/offset are wholly unexplained in both places.
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 gives a specific verb (list), resource (articles), scope (a run's), and states the returned status dimensions (screening, fetch, wiki). It does not differentiate itself from fetch_articles, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., fetch_articles for full text). The agent must infer that this is a browsing/listing operation versus a fetching one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.