list_threadsList code review threads from a shared review board, filtering by status (open, resolved, wontfix, or all) to quickly find relevant discussion.
List review threads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | filter by status — 'open' (default) | 'resolved' | 'wontfix' | 'all' for every status. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, default filtering, pagination, or ordering. It also does not mention the status filter behavior that the schema documents.
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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is minimal enough that it sacrifices useful context.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter), full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description plus schema cover the basic mechanics of invoking the tool. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, so an agent may not know when to prefer this over get_thread or what default behavior to expect.
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 schema fully documents the only parameter, status. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but because the schema already covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 review threads.' This clearly states the operation and object, and is distinguishable from siblings like get_thread (single thread) and list_comments_since (comments). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thread, create_thread, or list_comments_since. There is no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or how this list operation relates to the other thread-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.