list_magazine_articlesList the launch-cohort magazine essays on selection science and better management. Known slugs (7): how-to-tell-whos-good, the-numbers-moved, structure-is-the-tool, grading-on-vibes, score-before-you-talk, two-thousand-jobs, ….
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| articles | Yes | ||
| contract | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral detail: it specifies the 'launch-cohort' subset and provides a preview of known slugs, which hints at the returned content. However, it does not explain the output format or any constraints beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 two sentences and purpose is front-loaded. The enumeration of slugs adds a bit of bulk but is informative and not redundant. It does not waste words on generic filler.
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?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema, so those aspects are covered. However, the description lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, especially search_magazine_articles. It also does not clarify whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, despite the 'Known slugs (7)' suggesting a finite set. A note on when to use this vs. search would complete the picture.
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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds value by listing known slugs, which gives a sense of the data scope, but since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 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 states a clear verb ('List'), resource ('magazine essays'), and scope ('launch-cohort' and topic). It distinguishes the tool from generic list operations by narrowing to a specific cohort, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is understandable without ambiguity.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings, particularly search_magazine_articles or get_magazine_article. The description does not mention filtering, pagination, or the trade-offs between listing all articles vs searching. An agent would have to infer when a full-cohort listing is appropriate.
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.