article_titlesList the CMS "title" records — each one a page's title text and slug,
e.g. {"title": "How to organize a hackathon", "slug": "how-to-organize"}.
An article always points at one of these; use this to find the title_id
article_create needs, or to see what pages exist at all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that by showing the item shape and explaining the relationship between titles and articles. It does not discuss pagination or response envelopes, but the schema covers the pagination parameters and the description covers the data shape.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The example JSON is valuable and the closing sentence provides practical usage context without unnecessary filler. Every sentence 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 simple read-only listing tool with fully documented optional pagination parameters, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, gives an example item, and states why an agent would call it. No critical detail 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%, with page and page_size fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "List the CMS 'title' records" and clarifies what each record contains with an example. It also differentiates the tool from siblings like article_list by explaining that an article points at a title record, making the resource unique.
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 gives clear use cases: "use this to find the `title_id` `article_create` needs, or to see what pages exist at all." It does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools like article_list, but the stated purposes are sufficiently clear context for an agent.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.
The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.
60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.
The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.