list_read_laterList what is queued in the read-later inbox: links and forwarded emails that are guaranteed to be covered in the next briefing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: false`. The description adds value by revealing a behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the listed items are 'guaranteed to be covered in the next briefing,' which is a temporal constraint not inferable from annotations alone.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and a key constraint without any wasted words. Every element 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and the annotations provide basic hints, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. It lacks details about the return format (e.g., does it return titles, dates?), but with no output schema, that is a minor gap for such 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (no schema details to cover). The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description cannot add more value here.
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 it lists the read-later queue, specifying the contents as 'links and forwarded emails' and a key distinguishing constraint: 'guaranteed to be covered in the next briefing.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like `list_briefings` or `save_for_later`.
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 this tool: to preview items that will appear in the next briefing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for viewing items not in that queue, but the guarantee of coverage provides clear context for its specific use case.
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.