get_pending_actionsGets the list of pending actions with their confidence scores and expiry times.
Returns the current pending actions queue — actions DevTrack wants to take but hasn't yet. Each action has a confidence score and an expiry time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, which the description aligns with by simply returning data. No side effects or permissions are described, but the annotations cover these aspects, and the description adds context about the returned data.
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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and output structure. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by mentioning that each action has a confidence score and expiry time. This gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the result format, though it does not enumerate all possible fields or variations.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is complete (0 parameters). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity. It correctly focuses on the output instead.
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 states the tool's purpose: returning the current pending actions queue. It also provides specific details about the content (confidence score, expiry time) and the subject (DevTrack), making it distinct from generic getters. The verb 'returns' is explicit.
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 description implies usage when pending actions are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_context or get_today_commits. No alternative tools are referenced, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.