List published courses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional fallback: your agent_signup token or paired agent key, only if your MCP client can't send an Authorization: Bearer header (the header is preferred and wins). Treated exactly like the header; never shown back.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add the 'published' filtering detail beyond annotations, but doesn't mention pagination, return shape, or ordering.
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?
Three words, front-loaded, with zero waste. Extremely concise, though perhaps too terse to be maximally helpful for routing decisions.
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 simple parameterless list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to adequate. However, it lacks any indication of what is returned (count, fields, pagination) or how it relates to sibling listing tools.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (an optional fallback token for auth) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the high coverage, but it also doesn't note that no filtering parameters exist.
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 and resource ('List published courses'), distinguishing it from lesson-oriented siblings like list_lessons and get_lesson. The scope 'published' adds a meaningful qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_lessons.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_lessons or list_deep_dives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.