get_user_storiesRetrieve all stored user stories from the Functional Requirements MCP Server to help developers review and manage project requirements.
Retrieve all stored user stories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'all stored', implying an unfiltered full listing, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume limits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though 'stored' is mildly redundant and the sentence is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 values need not be explained, and a no-parameter read tool has a low transparency burden. Still, the description omits any routing guidance relative to get_requirements, which is the main missing piece for correct tool selection.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no documentation gap for the description to fill.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a specific resource ('user stories') and clarifies scope with 'all stored'. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling get_requirements, so an agent gets no help choosing between them from the wording alone.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_requirements or get_tasks_tool, nor any stated precondition or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.