stoics_list_booksStoic Scroller. The whole books in the Library that can be read a passage at a time. The Stoics: daily readings from Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus and Seneca explained line by line, plans, search, and the whole Meditations, Enchiridion and Seneca's letters read a passage at a time.
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context of its own - it says nothing about what is returned, ordering, or the size of the result set, only promotional content about the corpus.
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 text is repetitive and poorly front-loaded: 'the whole books in the Library that can be read a passage at a time' is restated as 'the whole Meditations, Enchiridion and Seneca's letters read a passage at a time'. It leads with a brand name rather than the tool's action, and repeats itself instead of using the space to say what the tool returns.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description is the only place to explain what the list contains and in what form. Instead the description is ambiguous about whether it lists books at all, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from stoics_list_readings or stoics_read_book.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the input schema. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is expected or needed.
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 never states that the tool returns a list of books; it reads as marketing copy for the Stoic Scroller app ('daily readings... plans, search, and the whole Meditations... read a passage at a time'). It merely restates the title, and it conflates several sibling capabilities (get_reading, search_readings, read_book) rather than defining this one. There is no clear verb+resource statement like 'returns the books available in the library'.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, even though obvious siblings exist (stoics_read_book, stoics_get_reading, stoics_list_readings). The phrase 'books that can be read a passage at a time' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when to choose this over those siblings or what prerequisites exist.
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.