Skip to main content
Glama
rhinocap

Raven MCP

by rhinocap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

decision_list

Destructive

List the decisions that currently govern the design graph, with optional status filters to surface contested disputes, drafts, or uncommitted candidates.

Instructions

List decisions in the local Decision Graph. Defaults to ACTIVE decisions only — the ones that currently govern. Contesting a decision is what stops it governing, so contested decisions are deliberately excluded from the default: pass status:'contested' to review disputes, or include_contested:true to see both. A decision you cannot find is not the same as a decision that does not exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoDecision status to list. Omit to list active decisions.
drafts_onlyNoWhen true, return active decisions awaiting a rationale or confirmation.
include_contestedNoWhen true and status is omitted, include contested decisions alongside active ones. They do NOT govern — contesting is what removes a decision from force — but they are listed so an open dispute is discoverable rather than silently invisible. Read each decision's status field. Ignored when drafts_only is set: a contested decision is not a draft.
include_candidatesNoWhen true and status is omitted, include uncommitted imported candidates with active decisions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_contested
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true and status is omitted, include contested decisions alongside active ones. They do NOT govern — contesting is what removes a decision from force — but they are listed so an open dispute is discoverable rather than silently invisible. Read each decision's status field. Ignored when drafts_only is set: a contested decision is not a draft.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv2.2.9

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description presents an apparently read-only listing operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:true. The description does not mention this destructive character or any side effect of listing decisions. This is an Annotation Contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with every sentence adding useful guidance. The semantic explanation of 'contested' status and the final heuristic about missing decisions are both purposeful, not filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description makes the core selection semantics clear, including the non-obvious contested-decision behavior. It does not describe pagination, sort order, or exact return shape, but the operation is simple enough that 'list decisions' implies a list return, and the parameter schema covers the optional knobs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All four parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline can be 3. The prose adds meaningful interpretation by explaining why contested decisions are excluded from the default and how to opt into seeing them. It does not deepen drafts_only/include_candidates, but the schema already covers those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List decisions in the local Decision Graph.' It immediately clarifies the default scope (ACTIVE decisions only) and defines what 'active' means — decisions that currently govern — which distinguishes this listing tool from single-decision tools like decision_get.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance on how to adjust the default behavior: omit status for active decisions, pass status:'contested' to review disputes, or use include_contested:true to see both. It does not compare against sibling decision tools, but it does clearly explain the main filtering alternatives and the contested-decision rationale.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools