List active autonomous agent evolution proposals and improvement requests, with optional filtering by mineral focus, to track ongoing system enhancements.
List active autonomous agent evolution proposals and improvement requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of proposals to fetch | |
| mineral_focus | No | Optional filter by mineral |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It clearly implies a read-only list operation with no side effects, but it does not disclose what 'active' means, pagination behavior, error handling, or what fields are returned. For a simple list tool this is borderline adequate, but additional clarity would help.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and resource directly, though it could benefit from a brief mention of usage or parameters.
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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks details like the meaning of 'active', return format, or any filtering nuances. It does not actively mislead, but leaves room for interpretation.
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 input schema already documents both parameters (limit and mineral_focus) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context about how these parameters behave or interact, so it does not improve beyond the schema baseline.
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 a clear action (List) and resource (active autonomous agent evolution proposals and improvement requests), making it distinct from siblings like verify_mineral_lot_compliance or list_trade_precedents. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context where this tool is the right choice, leaving the agent to infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.