list_publicationsList published articles from The Revenue AI Report, newest first. Returns slug, title, summary, pillar, date and reading time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of articles to return. | |
| pillar | No | Optional editorial pillar to filter by. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pillar": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "readingTime": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "slug",
+ "title",
+ "summary",
+ "pillar",
+ "date",
+ "readingTime",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral details: 'newest first' ordering and the specific return fields (slug, title, summary, pillar, date, reading time), which go beyond the annotations and schema.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and scope, then states ordering and return fields. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy.
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?
The output schema exists, and the description adds the source report and ordering. Combined with the schema's param definitions and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly.
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%, with both 'limit' and 'pillar' fully described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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?
States the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'published articles from The Revenue AI Report'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_publication (single item) and search_publications (search) by focusing on listing with a defined scope.
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 clearly implies its use for retrieving all publications, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like search_publications are not mentioned, leaving the routing decision to the agent's 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.