List repo-scoped NeedFix entries with filters for kind, status, severity, and archived items. Supports paging and sorting.
List repo-scoped NeedFix entries (bounded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| order_by | No | created_at | |
| severity | No | ||
| order_dir | No | DESC | |
| include_archived | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "(bounded)" hints at result limits and "repo-scoped" hints at scoping, but there is no disclosure of default limit/offset behavior, whether archived entries are excluded by default, ordering semantics, or any auth/permission requirements.
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 and resource, with no filler. It is arguably too terse given the tool's 8 parameters, but there is no wasted text.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for an 8-filter listing tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves an agent unable to know how to filter, order, or page correctly. It is not complete enough to invoke 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?
All 8 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Bounded" loosely gestures at limit/offset and "repo-scoped" at scope, but kind, status, severity, order_by, order_dir, and include_archived are entirely unaddressed.
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 ... NeedFix entries") plus scope ("repo-scoped"), which separates it from needfix_show/needfix_count at a glance. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for non-repo-scoped or aggregated views, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named among the many needfix_* and dashboard_needfix_* siblings. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.