List recent subagent jobs, newest first, with an optional limit to control result count.
Recent jobs, newest first.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "subagent_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, result count, whether the list is bounded, or error behavior. Only the sort order is stated.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, and "newest first" is a genuinely useful ordering fact. However, the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the sentence is a fragment that leaves the core action unstated.
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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a 'job' is, how many are returned, and what the limit controls. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.
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 single parameter 'limit' is never mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema does supply a default (20) and a maximum (100), which is the only constraint information available, so the description adds no semantic value.
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 is a noun fragment ("Recent jobs, newest first.") with no verb and no explicit statement that it lists subagent jobs. It conveys return ordering but an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like subagent_status or subagent_result based on this text.
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 call this versus subagent_status, subagent_result, or subagent_wait. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.