Retrieve a per-system survey ledger from your journals, filtered by completion grade and row limit, to review which systems are COMPLETE, PARTIAL, or VISITED.
Per-system survey ledger from YOUR journals (COMPLETE/PARTIAL/VISITED).
grade: optionally filter to one grade. limit caps rows (default 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grade | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| journal_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful provenance context by emphasizing the data comes from 'YOUR journals', implying a local read of the user's own records rather than a remote query. However, it says nothing about read-only/immutability, ordering, or how journal_dir affects which journals are scanned.
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 tight lines: the resource statement is front-loaded and the parameter notes are compact. No filler sentences, though the second line could have been used to cover journal_dir at nearly no cost.
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 described. For a three-parameter listing tool the description covers the core content and two of three parameters, but omitting journal_dir and any guidance versus sibling journal/system tools leaves it only adequately complete.
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 does explain grade (filter to one grade) and limit (caps rows, default 50), and the COMPLETE/PARTIAL/VISITED parenthetical effectively enumerates the grade values. The third parameter, journal_dir, is never mentioned, leaving a gap.
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 names the resource precisely (a per-system survey ledger) and specifies its provenance (the user's own journals) plus the possible grade values (COMPLETE/PARTIAL/VISITED). An agent can tell this is a local journal-derived survey status listing, not an external lookup. The verb is only implied ('ledger ... from journals'), which keeps it short of a 5.
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 choose this over closely related siblings such as get_journal_history, system_scan_status, or edsm_system_info. The description describes content but never states the selection condition (e.g., 'use this for your own recorded scan grades rather than external catalog data').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.