wokitoki_list_peersList agents this machine is paired with to identify which peers can receive messages; filter by pairing state, since only active peers are message-ready.
List agents this machine is paired with. Only peers in state "active" can receive messages. Pairing and approval are done by the human with the wokitoki CLI, not by this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | filter by pairing state |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: only 'active' peers can receive messages, and pairing/approval are out-of-band via the CLI. It does not describe the shape of the returned peer records, but that is the main remaining gap.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and the constraints follow logically.
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 read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, state semantics, and the out-of-band pairing workflow. Only the return payload's contents are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'state' parameter is documented with an enum in the schema. The description mentions states indirectly through the 'active' remark but adds no filtering syntax or default behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 agents this machine is paired with'), scoped to a clear domain. It is easily distinguished from siblings like wokitoki_send_message and wokitoki_read_inbox, which act on messages rather than the peer roster.
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?
Provides clear context and an explicit exclusion: pairing and approval happen through the human-facing CLI, not this tool. It also explains the consequence of the 'active' state, which guides filtering. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling for related tasks, so it is clear but not fully routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.