List articles published on loopingagent.com (English technical blog: agentic AI, MCP, LangGraph, TypeScript, blockchain). Returns slug, title, category and description for each. Use search_articles to find articles on a topic, and get_article to read one in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of articles to return (default: all of them). | |
| category | No | Filter articles by category. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Maximum number of articles to return (default: all of them).",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the returned fields (slug, title, category, description), which is valuable since there is no output schema, and the verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read. It does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when no articles match, which would be needed for a full 5.
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?
Three tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then return shape, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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, the description supplies the domain context, the return fields, and the sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both limit and category are already documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (List) and resource (articles) with explicit scope (published on loopingagent.com) and domain context. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings search_articles and get_article, which are named directly.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use search_articles to find articles on a topic, and get_article to read one in full. This gives when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance with the selecting condition.
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.