list_articlesPaginated list of articles from ADHD in Teens. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (default 30, max 100). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Page size (default 30, max 100)."New value: +"Max results per page (default 30, max 100)."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / page / descriptionPrevious value: -"Page number (default 1)."New value: +"Page number (1-indexed)."Input schema / properties / page / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / page / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / page / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds context by specifying the returned fields (title, slug, summary, URL), but does not disclose behavioral details such as default ordering, pagination errors, or rate limits. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not rich.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and key output information. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, the source, and the returned fields. It does not explain sorting or how to navigate through many pages, but these are not critical for basic usage given the schema's param descriptions. Sibling tool context implies this is the general list tool, which is sufficiently complete.
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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (page and limit) with defaults and constraints, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it neither compensates nor detracts. The 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's function: 'Paginated list of articles from ADHD in Teens' with specific verb 'list' and resource 'articles'. It also names the output fields (title, slug, summary, URL), making the purpose unambiguous. The pagination mention differentiates it from sibling tools like get_article (single article) and search_articles (filtered search).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_articles or get_article. It does not mention scenarios like 'browse all' or 'when you need a list without filters', leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching, listing, searching, citing, crisis resources, and site info. No overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, using verbs like get, list, search, cite, and clear nouns. No mixed naming conventions.
6 tools is well-scoped for an article library server, covering core operations without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full read-only lifecycle: retrieve single, list all, search, cite, plus essential auxiliary info. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.