List cached actions such as transactions and simulations for Stellar CLI work. Retrieve cached activity to review prior operations.
List cached actions like transactions and simulations (experimental feature)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| long | No | Show detailed information about cached actions | |
| configDir | No | Location of config directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Calling the feature experimental is the only behavioral disclosure; there is no information about permissions, whether listing has side effects, or whether the cache must be populated first, which is a notable gap for a tool adjacent to a destructive sibling like stellar_cache_clean.
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. It is not padded, though the parenthetical experimental label is slightly buried at the end.
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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool does but omits usage context and any behavioral constraints. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to discover how listing relates to reading.
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%, so both the long and configDir parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 (cached actions like transactions and simulations), which is concrete. It does not differentiate from its closest sibling stellar_cache_actionlog_read, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between listing and reading.
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 labels the feature as experimental but provides no when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this over stellar_cache_actionlog_read, and no conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.