TaskLinkr coming-soon watch feed. Returns the public launch categories and their time windows. Categories and windows only.
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": "watch_feed"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a scope boundary ('categories and windows only' – no detailed launch data). It also implies a non-mutating read via 'Returns.' However it says nothing about auth requirements, freshness/caching, rate limits, or what happens after launch when the feed is no longer 'coming-soon.'
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and followed by what it returns. 'Categories and windows only' slightly restates the prior sentence but does add a useful boundary, so it earns marginal keep. No padding.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must carry the return-value burden – and it does state the payload shape (categories plus time windows) and its scope limit. The main omission is behavioral context around freshness and permissions, which is a secondary concern for a zero-arg read feed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, fetch-everything call rather than suggesting filters that do not exist.
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 names the specific resource and output: the 'TaskLinkr coming-soon watch feed' returning 'public launch categories and their time windows.' That is enough for an agent to know what it fetches, though the verb 'watch' is idiomatic and slightly opaque about whether it subscribes, polls, or just reads. With no siblings, there is nothing to differentiate against, so it lands just shy of 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, what conditions make it appropriate (e.g., pre-launch only), or any alternative to consider. 'Coming-soon' hints at a temporal context but the agent must infer it. No exclusions or routing guidance are given.
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.