Lista el contenido de maximofn.com.
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_content"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | filtra por tipo: 'post', 'project' o 'tip'. Si se omite, devuelve todo. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, yet it says nothing beyond the bare operation. It does not mention that it is a read-only listing, whether results are paginated, or how results are ordered; the only mitigating factor is that an output schema exists to cover return values.
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 short sentence with no padding and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than true 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?
For a simple one-optional-parameter list tool with a 100%-documented schema and an output schema, the essentials are covered elsewhere. Still, the description omits sibling differentiation, scope of results, and any behavioral note, so it is only minimally adequate.
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 100% and the single optional 'type' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its allowed values and default behavior. The description adds nothing about the filter, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('el contenido de maximofn.com'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling search_content, which likely also retrieves content, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_content or content_stats. The agent gets no conditions, no exclusions, and no alternative routing, leaving usage entirely to inference.
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.