list_readingsAll curated daily readings and plans. 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on pagination, result volume, ordering, or whether it returns every reading ever curated versus a manageable set.
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 core statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second sentence is a marketing-flavored domain blurb ('explained line by line', listing three works) that does not help an agent decide or invoke. It is short enough overall, but part of it does not earn its place.
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 parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should make clear what the agent receives (all readings? summaries? metadata?). It conveys scope loosely ('all curated daily readings and plans') but no return shape or volume, leaving real gaps.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but there is none to add.
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 first sentence ('All curated daily readings and plans') implies a bulk list of readings, but the verb is implicit and the rest of the description is promotional content scope ('The Stoics... explained line by line'). It never distinguishes this from siblings like list_books or get_today, so an agent cannot tell which listing tool to pick.
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 at all: nothing says whether to call this instead of get_today, get_reading, or list_books. The word 'search' appears in the description but is not routed to the search_readings sibling, which could actively mislead an agent into thinking this tool searches.
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.