Retrieve state metadata in a deterministic order to get a concise overview of planning data without fetching full content.
List State metadata in deterministic ID order without full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two useful behaviors: deterministic ID ordering and metadata-only output. However, it never explicitly states the operation is read-only/safe, and says nothing about empty-state behavior or pagination, so disclosure is partial.
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 where every element earns its place: verb, resource, ordering behavior, and content exclusion. No wasted words, no filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint ('without full content') appears up front.
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?
Complexity is low (0 params) and an output schema is present, so the description only needs to establish scope and behavior. It does so with 'State metadata' and 'without full content'; the only nicety missing is an explicit pointer to read_state for full content, which is minor given the phrasing.
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 tool has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter syntax (none exists) but does clarify what the call returns — metadata, in deterministic ID order — which is the only semantics an agent needs for a parameterless call.
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') and resource ('State metadata'), and adds two scoping qualifiers — 'in deterministic ID order' and 'without full content' — that clearly differentiate it from the sibling read_state and write_state tools. The contrast with full-content retrieval is evident even though no sibling is named.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'without full content' implies the tool is for metadata-only needs and hints that full content lives elsewhere (read_state), but the description never states that condition, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.