List recent friction flags for an app to identify when the relationship watcher tripped. Results are most recent first, with an optional limit.
List recent friction flags recorded by friction_scan — the durable trace
of when the relationship watcher tripped (most recent first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| app_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries less burden. It adds meaningful context by framing flags as durable traces and ordering them most-recent-first. But it doesn't disclose behavior like limit handling, whether only flags from a certain timeframe are returned, or what a flag object contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, ordering, and purpose are all packed efficiently around the em dash. Every phrase contributes.
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?
The simple parameter set and annotations lower the bar, but the 0% schema description coverage and absent output schema mean the description is the only place to explain the required `app_id` and the response shape. It does neither of those, leaving an uncertain agent to guess what a flag record is.
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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'recent' facts are but doesn't explain `app_id` or `limit` at all, despite `app_id` being required. An agent must rely entirely on the schema's bare names.
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 states a specific verb 'List', a resource ('recent friction flags'), and an explicit ordering constraint ('most recent first'). It also clarifies the record's source and relationship to `friction_scan`, which differentiates it from the sibling tool that runs the actual scan.
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 that this tool is the durable output viewer for `friction_scan`, so an agent can intuit when to use it after a scan. However, it gives no exclusions or alternative candidates, such as 'use friction_scan when you need a fresh scan instead of viewing past flags.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.