List and filter naming annotations by status or name substring to track proposed, confirmed, refuted, ported, and superseded records across game patches.
List labels, filtered by status (proposed|confirmed|refuted|ported|superseded) and name substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| status | No |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read listing operation but does not disclose behavior such as pagination (limit param), whether results are sorted, what happens when filters are omitted, or the return structure. An output schema exists, which helps, but the description does not add context beyond the basic purpose.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and filter options. No wasted words.
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 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves key parameters (build, limit) unexplained and provides no operational context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but input semantics and usage conditions are incomplete.
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. It only clarifies status values and 'name substring' for the query parameter. The build and limit parameters are entirely undocumented, and there is no explanation of default behaviors (limit=200) or how parameters combine.
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 clear verb (List) and resource (labels), and adds the filter dimensions (status, name substring). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like propose_label and review_label which mutate labels, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find, port_labels, or review_label. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions for selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.