List all downloads tracked by AB Download Manager. Filter by status like active, paused, or completed to quickly check progress and identify any errors.
List downloads currently tracked by AB Download Manager.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total count of items returned | |
| items | No | List of downloads |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the 'currently tracked' scope, which is mildly useful but does not disclose pagination, ordering, filtering behavior, or return shape. This meets the minimum viable threshold but adds little beyond annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It immediately states the action and resource, making it easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of omitting parameter and usage guidance.
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?
Given the tool is a simple read-only list operation with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention the optional status filter or differentiate from related sibling tools, so the agent must rely on the schema and sibling names to use it fully 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 0% and the description never mentions the optional 'status' parameter or how to use it. The parameter's meaning is somewhat inferable from its name and enum values, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess whether filtering is supported and what values mean.
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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('downloads tracked by AB Download Manager'), so an agent can understand the tool's basic function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like abdm_get_download or abdm_check_status, relying on the tool name rather than the description.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as abdm_get_download for a single download or abdm_check_status for status checks. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals explaining what makes this the right choice, so the agent has to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.