List communities newest-first, cursor-paginated (limit 1-20, default 20; echo nextCursor back with the same arguments). Encrypted communities appear only to their members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1-20; default 20. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque server-minted cursor (<=256 chars); echo nextCursor verbatim. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries behavioral burden, and it delivers: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination semantics, and an access-control rule (encrypted communities visible only to members). It stops short of stating auth requirements or failure modes.
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, front-loaded with ordering and pagination, no filler. Dense but readable; parenthetical param recap mildly duplicates the schema.
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 2-param cursor list with no output schema, it covers ordering, paging loop, and visibility rules. Lacking auth/error detail but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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%, with the limit range, default, and cursor contract all documented in the schema. The description reinforces pagination and echo semantics but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 communities) and adds ordering and scoping detail. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but against list_posts/list_challenges the resource is clearly distinct.
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 alternatives. The only contextual hook is the encryption visibility note, which is a filter condition rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.