list_channelsList the messaging channels Parley supports and each channel's capabilities (how you link it, media/groups/threads).
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": "list_channels"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the payload's shape (per-channel linking method plus media/groups/threads capabilities) and the verb "List" signals a read, but it never states auth requirements, whether results are static or user-scoped, or that it is safe/non-mutating.
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 front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by enumerating the capability dimensions returned. No boilerplate or repetition; slightly dense but well structured.
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 catalog tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing what each entry contains (linking method, media/groups/threads flags), which is the key missing structured information. Only the static-vs-user-scoped question remains unaddressed.
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; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about arguments.
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?
"List the messaging channels Parley supports" gives a specific verb and resource, and "Parley supports" implies the platform catalog rather than the caller's own linked accounts, which differentiates it from list_connections and list_chats. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to discover which channel types exist and what they support before linking or sending. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to a sibling such as list_connections for the user's already-linked accounts.
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.