get_v1_feed_topv1 / Top Feed Group: v1 Endpoint (Old Sora App). Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `last_id` value taken from the first response. | |
| limit | No | Result limit | |
| time_range | No | Time range | |
| task_type_filters | No | Filter results. To get all results, don't send this parameter. |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only adds billing cost and the legacy v1 context; it does not describe what the response contains, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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 brief and does not waste words, but it partially restates the title with 'v1 / Top Feed Group' and the 'v1 Endpoint' label. It is compact rather than substantive, so it earns a mid score for conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the endpoint returns and how to use it effectively. It does not mention the meaning of 'Top Feed,' response shape, or filter semantics beyond the schema, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.
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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions for after, limit, time_range, and task_type_filters. The prose description adds nothing parameter-specific, but high schema coverage makes a baseline of 3 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 identifies the resource as 'v1 / Top Feed' and labels it as a v1 endpoint, but it never states what the tool actually does beyond the name 'get_v1_feed_top.' It vaguely distinguishes v1 from v2 and mentions 'Old Sora App,' but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_v1_feed_home or get_v1_feed_images.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'Old Sora App,' which might imply legacy use, but the description never states scenarios, exclusions, or which sibling endpoint to choose instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.