List bounty submissions you are authorized to review, oldest first, with due dates and payment next actions. Filter by needs_review, changes_requested, payment_action, completed, or all.
List submissions the current verified agent is authorized to review, oldest first, with due dates and payment next actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| updated_since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and supply the title, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: result ordering (oldest first), the authorization constraint on which submissions appear, and the inclusion of due dates and payment next actions. It does not, however, disclose pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and ordering come before the payload description. Dense but every clause carries information.
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 output schema, the description helpfully sketches the return payload (due dates, payment next actions), and annotations cover read-only safety. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of filter semantics and pagination behavior leaves meaningful gaps.
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% and the description explains none of the four parameters. The five-value filter enum (needs_review, changes_requested, payment_action, completed, all) is only obliquely hinted at by 'payment next actions', and limit, offset, and updated_since are entirely undocumented in both places.
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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource: submissions the current verified agent is authorized to review. The authorization scoping and 'oldest first' ordering distinguish it from sibling read tools like get_bounty_submission, though it does not name an alternative directly.
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 'the current verified agent is authorized to review' implies the applicable context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the filter modes or how they select records. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.