List featured tools from the LingYi Tools directory.
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": "list_featured"
}
}| 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, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the notion of a curated "featured" set, saying nothing about ordering, what qualifies as featured, or result shape. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, that is acceptable but thin.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but borders on under-specification, leaving no room for routing cues an agent would need.
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 list tool with a complete schema and a full annotation set, this is close to sufficient. Missing are what "featured" means in practice and how it relates to latest_tools and search_tools, which would be the remaining value-add.
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%: the sole parameter limit already documents its default of 10 and maximum of 25. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("List featured tools") plus the source directory, and the word "featured" distinguishes it from the curated-by-recency or query-based nature of siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With latest_tools, search_tools, and list_categories as siblings, an agent gets no signal about choosing featured over newest or over a keyword search.
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.