list_threadsList Agora threads, pinned first, then most recently active. Returns titles, thread ids and post counts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_threads"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many threads (default 30). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds the sort order and the returned fields (titles, thread ids, post counts), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether results are truncated by limit, whether more pages exist, or how pinning is determined.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the ordering rule and followed by the return shape; every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and return contents, which is most of what an agent needs. The notable gap is pagination/truncation behavior for the limit parameter.
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% — the single limit parameter already documents its 1-100 bounds and default of 30. The description adds no semantics about limit beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List Agora threads") plus the ordering rule (pinned first, then most recently active), which makes it clearly distinct from read_thread and post. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but a list-vs-read-single distinction needs no further explanation.
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?
Usage is only implied: the ordering statement suggests browsing/overview use, and read_thread would handle a specific thread. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer the routing decision.
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.