Show a channel's topic, or set it when text is given.
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": "topic"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| channel | No | Channel, e.g. #general (the default). |
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 disclosure burden, and it does surface the most important trait: the read/write mode switch based on presence of text. It says nothing about what permissions are needed to set a topic, whether a topic change notifies channel members, or whether the caller must be joined to the channel — meaningful gaps for a mutation-capable 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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the read case and immediately followed by the write condition. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the mode dispatch and default channel adequately. It stops short on side effects of the write path and on what a read returns (e.g. empty topic behavior), which an agent would benefit from knowing before mutating shared channel state.
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 50%: channel is documented in the schema ('#general (the default)') but text has no schema description at all. The description compensates by defining the semantics of text precisely — supplying it triggers a set, omitting it triggers a read — which is critical meaning the schema does not convey.
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 names both the resource (a channel's topic) and the two verbs it supports (show / set), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distance itself from a sibling like channel_info, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.
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 conditional 'or set it when text is given' is an explicit usage rule that tells the agent which mode fires on which input, which is essential for a polymorphic tool. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
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.