List Geervanee's published Treatise articles (title, category, summary, URL), optionally filtered by category. Use read_article with a slug from here to get the full text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max articles to return. Default 20, max 100. | |
| category | No | Only articles in this exact category. Omit to list every category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the output is a list with specific fields and that only summaries are returned, not full text. However, it omits any mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or pagination, which for a read-only list may be acceptable but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.
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 concise sentences: the first covers purpose and output, the second covers usage with a next step. Every word serves a function, no redundancy. Highly front-loaded and efficient.
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 listing tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the filtering option, and the integration point with read_article. It does not need to explain return types since there is no output schema, and the tool is straightforward.
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%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds minor value by repeating the 'optional filter' concept and hinting at the use of slugs, but doesn't go beyond the schema's existing explanations. Baseline 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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Geervanee's published Treatise articles', including the fields returned (title, category, summary, URL) and the optional filter. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_courses and list_games by specifying the article-specific content and ties to read_article.
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?
Provides clear context: the tool is for list-level browsing, and directs users to read_article with a slug from this list for full text. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the flow is unambiguous and differentiates from the other listing tools.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: about provides an overview, list_* iterates over separate content types (articles, courses, games), read_article retrieves a full article, and subscribe handles email notifications. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a uniform lower_snake_case pattern, with clear verb prefixes ('list_', 'read_', 'subscribe', 'about_'). The naming is intuitive and consistent across the set.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for a content-oriented server. Each tool covers a necessary action (overview, list each category, read an article, subscribe) without excess or redundancy.
The main workflows (browsing articles, courses, games; reading an article; subscribing) are covered. However, there is no way to retrieve details for a specific course or game beyond the list responses, and no search functionality, which could be minor gaps in a content discovery context.