list_magazine_articlesList the launch-cohort magazine essays on selection science and better management. Known slugs (6): 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the main safety profile. The description adds the concrete slugs and launch-cohort scope, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or that the list is a fixed curated set beyond what openWorldHint=false already conveys. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second provides the complete list of known slugs, which is directly useful to the agent. Every element earns its place.
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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient. It identifies the exact dataset and scope, and the known slugs remove ambiguity about what will be returned. No additional instructions about return shape or side effects are needed.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter behavior. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, 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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('launch-cohort magazine essays'), and the exact scope ('selection science and better management'). It also enumerates the six known slugs, making the listing precise. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from them, but the noun phrases are clear enough to distinguish from get_magazine_article, list_get2great_feeds, and list_management_tools.
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 implies its usage: use this tool to retrieve the six known launch-cohort essays. It gives no explicit guidance on when to choose search_magazine_articles or get_magazine_article instead, and doesn't state exclusions. With sibling tool names available as context, the intended case is inferable but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.