List educational notes (slug, title, description, tags, url). Educational only. Not financial advice. Not an FSP/CASP. DYOR. Listings and tools are not buy, sell, custody, or swap recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It partially fulfills this by specifying the returned fields and implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, completeness, authentication requirements, or other potential behavioral traits.
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 main sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the description then spends four sentences on repeated disclaimers ('Not financial advice', 'Not an FSP/CASP', 'DYOR', 'not recommendations') that add little for tool selection. These sentences could be condensed without losing meaning.
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-parameter list tool, the output fields and educational scope are specified, which is helpful. However, there is no indication of when to choose notes over sibling list tools, nor any mention of list limits, ordering, or whether all notes are returned, so completeness is only partial.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond an empty schema. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, and the description does not introduce any conflicting or misleading parameter implications.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('educational notes') and enumerates the output fields: slug, title, description, tags, url. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as list_guides or list_pillars beyond the resource name.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_directory, list_guides, or search_content. The disclaimers about financial advice and DYOR are compliance-related, not usage guidance, so an agent receives no selection criteria.
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.
list_directory and search_directory accept nearly identical filters (q, category, tag), so their boundaries blur. The get_/list_/search_ split is otherwise clear, and the meta endpoints (disclaimer, site_posture, llms_map) are distinct though thematically related.
All tool names consistently follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern using only get_, list_, and search_. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or unpredictable naming.
Twelve tools is within a reasonable range for a read-only educational content server. However, the overlap between list_directory and search_directory suggests the surface could be slightly trimmed without losing core functionality.
The server covers directory browsing, educational content listing and searching, metrics, and site-positioning meta endpoints well. Missing per-item getters for guides and notes is a minor gap since lists include URLs and search covers those types; write operations are not expected for an educational-only server.