list_reviewsRetrieve all markdown reviews with their status (awaiting, feedback, or resolved), note counts, and revision numbers to track review progress and identify what needs attention.
List every review with its status (awaiting/feedback/resolved), note counts, and revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds information the annotations do not: the returned shape (status with its awaiting/feedback/resolved values, note counts, revision), which is meaningful because no output schema exists.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the returned fields. No filler wording or redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it and interpret the result. The remaining gap is scope behavior: whether results are paginated, ordered, or truncated for large review sets is unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no argument semantics to explain. The description correctly avoids inventing filters or options that don't exist in the empty schema.
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?
"List every review" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word "every" implicitly separates it from get_review, which returns a single review. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
The enumeration framing implies when to reach for this tool (browsing all reviews) rather than get_review, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 20 siblings including get_review and get_status, a single routing sentence would have added real value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.