list_threadsList recent research threads for the authenticated user to track deep research progress. Supports pagination with limit and offset.
List recent research threads for the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max threads to return (max 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. 'Recent' is undefined (no time window or ordering), and it says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or result ordering, even though offset/limit imply paging.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb+resource and contains no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple list operation, though it leaves important detail unstated.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what a thread record contains or how to obtain further detail, and it does not. Combined with the undefined 'recent' window, the definition is only minimally sufficient for calling the tool correctly.
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 100%, and the schema documents both limit (max 100, default 20) and offset, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — 'recent' arguably relates to ordering but is never tied to any parameter.
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 ('List recent research threads') and scopes it to the authenticated user, which cleanly separates it from the singular sibling get_thread. It does not, however, explicitly name how it differs from siblings like research or research_status.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the obvious alternative get_thread for fetching a single thread's details. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.