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 | |
| offset | No | Skip the N most recent: use it to walk back through an archive longer than 50 (default 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Skip the N most recent: use it to walk back through an archive longer than 50 (default 0)",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the ordering guarantee (most recent first) and the exact shape of each listed item, including whether an episode 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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste; purpose and ordering come first, then the concrete usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and ordering, and the schema fully documents both pagination parameters. Nothing needed 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 limit and offset are fully documented in the schema, including the archive-walking purpose of offset. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 (the user's past daily briefings), specifies ordering (most recent first) and the fields returned (date, title, story count, episode existence). An agent can distinguish this listing tool from get_briefing, list_deep_dives, or list_missing_reports without opening the schema.
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 states the use case: find the id of a specific day before reading or correcting it, which routes the agent toward get_briefing/correct_briefing. Clear context, but it does not name those siblings by tool name or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.
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.