list_executionsRetrieve recent EEG/BCI pipeline executions, optionally filtered by running, completed, failed, or cancelled status, to track experiment campaigns and streaming sessions.
Recent executions. Optional status filter (running/completed/failed/cancelled).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at recency/ordering and names valid status values, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, the default limit behavior, ordering guarantees, or result volume for what is effectively an unpaginated-friendly list 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?
Two telegraphic fragments with zero filler, and the recency scope is front-loaded ahead of the filter detail. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.
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 not be explained. However, with no annotations and no usage routing, and with the limit parameter undocumented, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 usefully enumerates the status values (running/completed/failed/cancelled) that the schema declares only as a bare string, but the limit parameter is entirely undocumented in both places, leaving half the parameter surface unexplained.
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 states the resource ('executions') with a recency scope ('Recent'), but the verb is only carried by the tool name and title, making it close to a restatement. It does not differentiate this list tool from the sibling get_execution or explain what 'recent' means in scope.
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 versus list alternatives such as get_execution or cancel_execution, nor any prerequisites or context. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.