Fetch unarchived Codex session threads from the backend without loading their full contents. Filter by backend project ID and paginate using a cursor.
List unarchived backend threads without loading them. Project IDs are backend IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it does not load threads, only lists unarchived ones, and warns that project IDs refer to backend IDs. This helps an agent understand the operation's lightweight nature and potential ID interpretation pitfalls.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the additional ID clarification is kept to a single relevant sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so those are not gaps. Still, the description omits guidance on cursor-based pagination, limit behavior, and explicit selection between this tool and read_thread. Adequate for a simple list tool but with clear gaps in parameter semantics and usage routing.
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 for explaining cwd, limit, and cursor. It adds only the note that 'Project IDs are backend IDs,' which may clarify cwd but leaves limit and cursor completely unexplained. This is insufficient for a paginated list tool.
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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('unarchived backend threads'), and a behavioral qualifier ('without loading them'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_thread, send_message_to_thread, and create_thread.
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 phrase 'without loading them' implies this tool is for lightweight enumeration rather than fetching full thread content, which gives some usage context relative to read_thread. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, state when not to use it, or explain when the unarchived filter matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.