Public previews and limitations. Paid retrieval is initial-delivery-only; do not repay after a lost response.
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_experience_previews"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral context: paid retrieval is initial-delivery-only and should not be repaid after a lost response. This is a specific operational rule beyond the annotations, though it remains somewhat cryptic about when or how it applies.
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 two short sentences with no obvious filler. The first sentence is front-loaded but vague, while the second sentence supplies a focused behavioral warning.
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-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what the previews contain and does not clarify the relationship to the sibling get_experience_case.
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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
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 a broad subject ('Public previews and limitations') but does not state a clear verb or scope, so it is only vaguely clear that this tool lists previews. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_experience_case.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_experience_case, nor any explicit usage context. The sentence 'Paid retrieval is initial-delivery-only; do not repay after a lost response' is a payment/retry warning rather than a selection guideline.
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.