List the latest tools by listing date (falls back to id order when no date is set).
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": "latest_tools"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 10, max 25 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the sort falls back to id order when no listing date exists, which explains observed output ordering. It does not state the result ceiling or truncation behavior.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the ordering caveat parenthesized where it belongs. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.
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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key ordering semantics an agent needs. It is slightly thin on how this differs from the sibling listing tools, which is the only real completeness gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries its default (10) and maximum (25) description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about how limit interacts with the date ordering.
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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the latest tools') and defines the ordering key, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like list_featured, forcing inference about which 'latest' listing differs from 'featured'.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for newest-item listings, but no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives (list_featured, search_tools) are provided. With four sibling list/search tools, an explicit routing statement would have been valuable.
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.