cotal_list_postsLists posts from the COTAL build log (blog), newest first, with cursor pagination. Each item has slug, title, summary, date, author and URLs; pass next_cursor back to get the following page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 10, max 50). | |
| cursor | No | The next_cursor value from a previous call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering (newest first), cursor pagination mechanics, and the item fields returned. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a complete mental model of the call.
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?
Two sentences carry all essential information: what is listed, ordering, pagination, and response item structure. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important details are front-loaded.
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 the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and thorough annotations, the description is complete. It covers the return shape, pagination behavior, and read-only nature, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.
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 both limit and cursor are described in the schema. The description reinforces the cursor mechanism by mentioning next_cursor, but it adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool lists posts from the COTAL build log, newest first, with pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like cotal_get_post (single post) and cotal_search (searching), so an agent can confidently identify its purpose.
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 provides clear context: use it to browse build-log posts and paginate with next_cursor. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for a routine list endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.