list_experimentsRetrieve experiment records from the server's SQLite store, optionally filtered by running or closed status, to review and manage experiment lifecycle.
List experiment records stored in this server's SQLite file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experiments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the mention of a local SQLite file merely restates that the data is local. The description doesn't disclose the default behavior when status is omitted, the ordering, whether results are paginated, or what an empty result means — behavioral traits the annotations don't cover.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and usage detail noted above.
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 explanation isn't required, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. Still, for a listing tool the description should say what the default listing contains and how the status filter behaves, which it omits.
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%, so the description must carry the burden for the single status parameter, but it never mentions status at all. It doesn't explain the running/closed enum values or that the null default returns all experiments, leaving the parameter's meaning undocumented in both places.
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 and resource: "List experiment records." The clause about the SQLite file adds scope, though it doesn't differentiate this tool from any sibling or note that the other siblings are mutation/analysis tools rather than other listers.
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 guidance at all: nothing says to call this before close_experiment or draft_readout, and nothing indicates whether an unfiltered call returns everything. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.