Retrieve subagent runs filtered by start time and status to track asynchronous task execution and completion.
List subagent runs known to this harness.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_subagents"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ||
| status | No |
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 only states 'List subagent runs known to this harness,' implying a read-only operation but giving no details about scope, pagination, result format, or any side effects. The phrase 'known to this harness' is vague and unexplained.
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 one short sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core action efficiently and earnestly.
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, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the return value (e.g., run IDs, statuses, timestamps) or any filtering behavior beyond what the schema hints at. Without an output schema, this lack of context makes the tool's behavior ambiguous.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'since' parameter's semantics (since what? timestamp? run index?) are unclear, and 'status' only lists enum values in the schema without explanation. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema description coverage.
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 uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'subagent runs', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_subagent_status, which targets a single subagent, and prune_subagents, which implies removal.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases. The description merely states what it does without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.