List evidence not updated within a set number of days so you can identify stale items for renewal before audits.
List evidence that hasn't been updated recently and may need renewal.
Args: days: Consider evidence stale if not updated in this many days (default 30)
Returns: Evidence that may need to be renewed
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the staleness rule and the 30-day default threshold, and 'List' implies a safe read with no side effects. However, it says nothing about permissions, result ordering, or volume/pagination for what could be a long list.
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 Args/Returns pseudo-docstring formatting is readable and the core purpose is front-loaded, but the 'Returns:' line merely restates the opening sentence ('may need renewal') and duplicates information already carried by the output schema.
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 single-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is adequate: purpose, the one parameter, and the default are all covered. The redundant Returns section adds nothing, and the lack of any sibling differentiation leaves a minor routing gap against list_evidence.
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% (the schema only says integer 'Days' with default 30), so the description must compensate, and it does: 'days' is defined as the staleness threshold, not just a count. The default is also echoed from the schema, which is mildly redundant but not harmful.
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?
States a specific verb and resource plus a scope qualifier: evidence 'that hasn't been updated recently and may need renewal.' This is meaningfully distinct from the sibling list_evidence, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two scopes, so the agent must infer the routing.
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 'may need renewal' implies the renewal-audit use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., list_evidence for the full inventory). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.