Lists published editorial guides — parent-facing articles like 'How to pick a summer camp.' Pass city for another city's guides (each city has its own blog); defaults to Lodi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City slug (e.g. 'galt'). Defaults to Lodi. | |
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City slug (e.g. 'galt'). Defaults to Lodi.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Lists published' usefully implies a read-only, published-only result set, and the note that each city has its own blog clarifies scoping. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, rate limits, or what a returned guide contains.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its scope. The example article earns its place by making 'editorial guides' concrete rather than abstract.
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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the city default. It is incomplete regarding the undocumented `limit` parameter and the shape/ordering of results.
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%: `city` is already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the rationale that each city has its own blog. The `limit` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its effect (page size? ordering?) unexplained.
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 ('Lists published editorial guides') and clarifies the resource with a concrete example article and its audience ('parent-facing'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_guide, so differentiation is left to the singular/plural inference.
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?
Explains the city-selection behavior ('Pass `city` for another city's guides') and the Lodi default, which is genuine usage context. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus get_guide or search-style siblings, and no exclusions.
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.