Retrieve a project's literature review searches, newest first, to review prior screening runs and continue an auditable med-lit workflow.
List a project's searches (runs), newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| project | No | Project name from list_projects; may be omitted when only one project exists |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 safety is covered. The description adds the newest-first ordering, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination or how limit interacts with results.
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 zero filler; the scope and ordering are conveyed compactly with no wasted words.
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 explained, and ordering is covered. However, for choosing among the many sibling tools the agent gets no guidance, and the limit parameter's semantics are left to inference.
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 only 50%: the project parameter is documented but limit has no description at all. The description offers no parameter meaning and does not compensate for the undocumented limit beyond what its name/default imply.
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?
States a specific verb (List), resource (a project's searches/runs), and result ordering (newest first), which lets an agent understand the operation immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like get_run_status or list_projects, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over get_run_status, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'a project's searches'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.