get_podcast_episodeGet the audio episode generated from a briefing: a private podcast narrated in the user's language, with a playable URL and the show notes listing every source. Returns the latest episode by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| briefing_id | No | Episode of a specific briefing. Omit for the latest. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a private podcast narrated in the user's language, with a playable URL and show notes listing sources, and defaults to the latest episode. This goes beyond the read-only hint and sets accurate return expectations.
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?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that leads with the main action and includes essential output details. It is front-loaded with 'Get the audio episode' and contains no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly efficient.
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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and the default behavior. It does not introduce unnecessary complexity and leaves no obvious gaps.
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?
The single parameter briefing_id is fully described in the schema ('Episode of a specific briefing. Omit for the latest.'), and the description repeats the default-latest behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic value, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool gets the audio episode generated from a briefing, with a specific verb and resource. It details the output (playable URL, show notes, language) and differentiates from sibling tools like get_briefing by focusing on the audio format.
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 description implies when to use the tool: to retrieve the podcast version of a briefing, with the optional briefing_id for specific episodes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the audio-episode counterpart to other briefing tools.
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.
Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.
Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.
With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.