Retrieve goals from the Company → Project → Agent → Task hierarchy. Filter by status, agent, or project to view relevant objectives.
List all goals (Company → Project → Agent → Task hierarchy)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| agentId | No | Filter by agent ID | |
| projectId | No | Filter by project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the hierarchy hint adds some context. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, permissions, or how filters interact with the 'all goals' claim.
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 compact sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical hierarchy adds useful context without bloating the text.
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 simple list tool with optional filters, the description gives enough to identify the action, but it lacks return format, pagination/sorting behavior, and any usage guidance relative to siblings. The optional filters are clear from the schema, which keeps this at a minimally viable level.
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 100%, so the enum and filter fields are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to because the schema covers all three optional parameters.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all goals') and adds the hierarchy context, distinguishing it from create_goal and get_goal. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, so it falls 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_goal or create_goal, no exclusions, and no mention of what the optional filters are for in practical terms. The schema communicates the filters, but the description itself provides no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.