Retrieve locally recorded complaints newest first, then filter by text, category, or severity to find relevant reports.
List locally recorded complaints newest first; filter by text, category or severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| severity | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: local-only scope and newest-first ordering. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, default limit of 50, or that this is a non-destructive read, leaving notable behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 that states purpose, ordering, and filterable dimensions with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the key information (list, ordering, filters) leads.
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 no explanation, and the description covers scope, ordering, and filters. But for a 5-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the absence of any pagination/default-limit context leaves it only minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: 'filter by text, category or severity' maps to the search/category/severity params, but limit and offset (pagination) are never explained. Three of five parameters gain meaning; two remain opaque.
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 and resource ('List ... complaints') plus a meaningful scope qualifier ('locally recorded') and an ordering ('newest first'). It clearly differs from the singular get_complaint/complaint siblings, but it never names them, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 versus get_complaint, complaint, or other list_* tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to the single-complaint getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.