List public questions that are still open, as article metadata with cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, 1–20 | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| next_cursor | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / attribution / maxItemsAdded value: +100Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / basis / maxLengthAdded value: +2000Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / change_notice / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / language / maxLengthAdded value: +35Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / related / maxItemsAdded value: +20Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / sources / maxItemsAdded value: +24Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / summary / maxLengthAdded value: +1000Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / tags / maxItemsAdded value: +12Output schema / $defs / ArticleMetadata / properties / title / maxLengthAdded value: +200Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the filter to open/public questions, the article metadata return shape, and cursor-based pagination.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key return/pagination detail without any 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 read-only listing tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition is sufficient. It conveys scope, filtering, and pagination; nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit and cursor are already documented. The description's mention of cursor pagination adds minimal extra meaning, keeping this at the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 and resource: 'List public questions that are still open', and clarifies the return form as article metadata with cursor pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recent_changes or 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 clear context for when to use the tool: listing open public questions. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.
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.