List Corduroy Labs blog updates, newest first.
Args:
limit: optional maximum number of items to return.
Returns:
A list of update summaries with: slug, title, url,
date_published, summary, and optionally tags, location, image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It describes the output format and ordering, but does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Concise with front-loaded purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. No extraneous information.
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?
Given low complexity (1 parametric, output schema exists), the description covers the input, output, and ordering. Missing details like default limit or maximum, but still functional.
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?
Only one parameter 'limit' with schema description coverage 0%. The description explains its purpose as 'optional maximum number of items to return', adding sufficient meaning beyond the schema.
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 it lists blog updates newest first, clearly indicating the resource and action. The sibling tool 'get_update' implies this lists multiple, so differentiation is clear.
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?
Mentions ordering and optional limit, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling 'get_update'. However, the context of listing vs single retrieval is implied.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one fetches a single update by slug, the other lists updates. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_update and list_updates. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels slightly minimal but appropriate for a read-only blog update service. It could benefit from one or two more tools for searching or filtering, but the count is not unreasonable.
The server covers the basic read operations (list and get by slug) for blog updates. Missing are search, filtering by tags or date, and pagination beyond a limit parameter. However, for a read-only surface, the coverage is adequate.