Lists project checkpoints newest first with full pending text, filterable by active, done, or all status.
List checkpoints for the current project, newest first, with full pending text. Filter with status=active|done|all (default all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Status filter; default all. | |
| project | No | Project key (when the client sends no workspace root). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Registered project key, used when the MCP client did not provide a workspace root."New value: +"Project key (when the client sends no workspace root)."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first) and that results carry full pending text rather than truncated previews, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, permissions, or explicitly that the operation is read-only.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste, and the key attribute (what is listed, in what order, with what content) is front-loaded before the filter note.
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 two-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, ordering, payload richness and filter default. The only gap is the optional 'project' override, which the phrase 'current project' gestures at but does not clarify.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema with the enum and default. The description only restates the status filter values and default, adding no meaning beyond the schema, and never explains the 'project' parameter or its interaction with 'current project'.
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 and resource ('List checkpoints'), the scope ('current project'), the ordering ('newest first') and the payload ('full pending text'), which is enough to tell it apart from rms_checkpoint_save/done/load siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear rather than crisp.
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 implies usage for listing/inspecting checkpoints and tells the agent how to scope results with status=active|done|all. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and never points to rms_checkpoint_load for retrieving a checkpoint's content or to rms_checkpoint_save for creating one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.