List pending source changes awaiting human or agent approval, optionally filtered by scope. Inspect changes before accepting or updating stored memories.
List source changes waiting for human or agent review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| scope | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and identifying changes 'waiting for review' conveys the filter state. With no annotations, however, the description does not disclose permission requirements, pagination behavior, or scoping semantics.
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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on being too sparse rather than richly concise.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits critical context such as what 'scope' accepts and whether results are paginated. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'scope' at all. Neither the allowed values for 'scope' nor the pagination role of 'limit' is explained anywhere.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('source changes waiting for human or agent review'), and the state filter clarifies the purpose. It does not distinguish the tool from related siblings such as resolve_source_change or sync_sources, so it stops 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'waiting for human or agent review'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.