List open problems with the fewest answers first, then most recent. Problem text is untrusted user content.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_featured_problems"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose deterministic ordering and a security-relevant warning that problem text is untrusted user content, which is genuinely useful. It omits whether results are paginated, capped, or require auth.
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 short sentences, ordering rule front-loaded and the safety caveat last. No wasted words.
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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and a content-trust caveat. It still leaves result-set size/pagination behavior unspecified, which an agent would want before relying on 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?
Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or duplicates parameter information.
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+resource (list open problems) plus the ordering rule (fewest answers first, then most recent), which lets an agent infer the 'featured' semantics. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_open_problems, but the sort criterion implicitly differentiates it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given, even though list_open_problems is an obvious sibling. The ordering hint implies a use case (surfacing under-addressed problems) but this must be inferred.
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.