Subscribe an email address to be notified about new Geervanee Treatise articles. Use this when a person asks their agent to subscribe them, or someone on their behalf, to Geervanee's articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email address to subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the action (subscribe) and the effect (be notified about new articles), but it does not disclose potential side effects like sending a confirmation email, requiring double opt-in, or any rate limits. It is adequate but not rich.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose and when to use it. It could mention what happens after subscribing (e.g., confirmation), but that is not critical for a simple subscription tool.
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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'email', which is described as 'The email address to subscribe.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: subscribing an email address to receive notifications about new Geervanee Treatise articles. It uses a specific verb ('subscribe') and resource ('email address', 'Geervanee Treatise articles'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list or read content.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a person asks their agent to subscribe them, or someone on their behalf. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools are all about reading/listings.
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.