List recent items in an owner's Zas channel to read agent-sent files and notes; requires a read grant.
List the most recent items in one of the owner's Zas channels. Needs a grant that includes reading. The owner sees every item this agent sends with the >_ agent mark and this agent's name, on every device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many items, 1 to 50. Defaults to 20. | |
| channel | Yes | Channel name or id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral requirement (a reading grant is needed) and a visibility trait (the owner sees items with the agent mark on every device), which is useful. However it omits return format, pagination/cursor behavior, and ordering caveats beyond 'most recent'.
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?
Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, and the permission constraint follows closely. The final sentence about device-wide agent marking is somewhat tangential but does carry transparency value, so it earns its place marginally.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and the key permission prerequisite. It is nearly complete; only return/pagination detail is missing.
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%: 'limit' documents its 1-50 range and default of 20, and 'channel' documents name-or-id. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 resource ('items in one of the owner's Zas channels'), with the 'most recent' scoping. It is distinguishable from the singular zas_get_item and the send_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
It gives a prerequisite ('Needs a grant that includes reading') but offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, e.g. versus zas_get_item or the receive_direct tools. 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.