Sources with status, last run and item counts. Optionally one collection.
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_sources"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | No | Collection slug, e.g. games (optional; see list_collections) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / collection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Collection slug, e.g. games"New value: +"Collection slug, e.g. games (optional; see list_collections)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return payload shape (status, last run, item counts), which matters because there is no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what 'status' values mean.
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 telegraphic fragments with zero filler, and the return-field summary is front-loaded before the filter caveat. It is efficient, though the fragmentary style costs a little readability.
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 zero-required-param read tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The gap is that no output schema exists, so return values rest entirely on the brief 'status, last run and item counts' phrase, with no detail on shape, ordering, or volume.
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% and the single parameter is documented with an example ('games') plus a pointer to list_collections. The description's 'Optionally one collection' only restates the optionality the schema already encodes, adding no new syntax or format detail.
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 names the resource ('Sources') and lists what comes back ('status, last run and item counts'), but it is a sentence fragment with no verb, so the agent infers 'list' from the tool name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_collections, run_source, or add_source.
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?
'Optionally one collection' implies the filtering behavior, and the schema's parameter hint points at list_collections, so usage is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing in the description itself.
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.