list_briefingsList the user's past daily briefings (most recent first) with date, title, number of stories and whether an episode exists. Use it to find the id of a specific day before reading or correcting it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many, default 10 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description confirms this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: ordering (most recent first), returned fields (date, title, number of stories, episode existence), and intended follow-up usage (read or correct). No annotation contradiction exists.
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 two sentences, both earn their place: the first lists what is returned and ordering; the second explains the use case. It could be slightly more concise by merging, but is effective and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description provides enough information for an agent to use it effectively. It explains the purpose, what fields are returned, and the use case. Missing details like whether the list is paginated or the exact date format are minor gaps but acceptable for a simple list tool.
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%, so the schema already documents limit with min, max, and default. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 lists past daily briefings, orders them most recent first, and specifies the fields returned: date, title, number of stories, and whether an episode exists. It distinguishes from siblings like get_briefing (which gets a specific one) by mentioning finding the id before reading or correcting.
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 explicitly states the tool should be used to find the id of a specific day before reading or correcting it, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it versus siblings like list_deep_dives or list_read_later, which could be used for other list needs.
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.