Skip to main content
Glama
tillbooks

tillbooks

Official

attention_list

Read-only

Fetch a page of pending items from a selected queue or area, with urgency filters and cursor pagination. Returns decision options and failure details.

Instructions

Page one queue or one area of Pendenzen: the same providers, the same capability filter and the same collapse and ranking as attention_summary, so the two faces never describe a queue differently. Returns { computedAt, items:[AttentionItem], nextCursor?, failed:[queueId] }. Filter by queueId (a single queue), area ('bank' | 'sales' | ...), or urgency ('overdue' | 'due' | 'open'); page with limit (default 20) and the opaque cursor from a prior nextCursor. A denied queue is absent, a thrown provider is named in failed[], and nothing here clears, dismisses or approves anything: every AttentionItem carries its decisionOptions[] (the owning surface's exits as existing write verbs with their fixed input and per-item idempotencyKey, see attention_summary), its suggestedInvoiceId, reasonCode/reasonKey and consequenceKey/consequence, and a deepLink descriptor into its owning surface for the hard case. Reads only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNo
limitNo
cursorNo
queueIdNo
urgencyNo
workspaceIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it explicitly says 'Reads only' and 'nothing here clears, dismisses or approves anything'. It also discloses failure behavior: denied queues are absent, thrown providers appear in failed[]. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense; every clause adds parameter semantics, return shape, failure semantics, or item contents. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured clearly enough for a complex read tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return shape: computedAt, items, nextCursor?, failed[]. It also details filter options, paging, failure behavior, and key fields on AttentionItem, referencing attention_summary for decisionOptions. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it covers most parameters well: queueId, area, urgency, limit (default 20), and cursor (opaque, from prior nextCursor). It does not explain the required workspaceId, which is a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('page') and resource ('one queue or one area of Pendenzen'), and explicitly ties itself to attention_summary as the two faces of the same queue. This clearly differentiates it from a generic list and from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description names attention_summary as the related surface and explains that it shares providers, capability filtering, collapse, and ranking. It gives clear filtering and paging context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose attention_list over attention_summary or include exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools