Find channels, busiest first, with topics. query filters by name or topic.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
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 burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('busiest first') and that topic text is returned, implying a read-only listing. It omits coverage of result limits, pagination, or behavior for a huge channel list, which matter for a listing tool.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the ordering/return detail is front-loaded. The telegraphic style is efficient but slightly clipped, relying on the reader to parse 'busiest first, with topics.'
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 single-parameter read tool this covers purpose, ordering, filter fields, and returned topic data. It is not complete: no statement about whether an empty query lists all channels, no pagination or result-cap behavior, and no guidance against the sibling lookup tools.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'query filters by name or topic' tells the agent what the single parameter matches against, which the bare string schema does not. Matching semantics (substring vs exact) and the empty-query case remain unspecified.
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 ('Find channels') and adds distinguishing traits: result ordering (busiest first) and that topics are included. It does not explicitly contrast with channel_info or topic, but the search-oriented framing makes the intent clear.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say whether to call this for a known channel name versus channel_info, nor whether an omitted query returns every channel, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb alone.
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.