Retrieve a unified chronological feed of all agent actions in the swarm. Use it to monitor coordination and track activity across heterogeneous AI agent CLIs.
[ENTANGLED] Retrieves the unified chronological activity feed of what all agents in the swarm have done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about pagination, ordering guarantees, permissions, or whether the feed is filtered by caller. The one behavioral trait stated (chronological/unified) is thin for an annotation-free tool.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. The '[ENTANGLED]' prefix is minor noise but the sentence itself has no wasted words; it is only slightly under-specified rather than verbose.
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-value shape need not be explained, and this is a simple read tool with one optional parameter. However, the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of any usage or behavioral context leave gaps, so it is only minimally adequate.
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 single parameter 'limit' is never mentioned in the description, so its default (15), valid range, and effect on the feed are undocumented everywhere. The description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a well-defined resource: a 'unified chronological activity feed of what all agents in the swarm have done.' That implicitly separates it from per-agent siblings like check_inbox or get_swarm, but it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of sibling tools such as check_inbox or get_swarm. The agent must infer that this is a monitoring/log-reading call from the purpose statement alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.