The coach's programs (name, length in days, version, how many clients are on each). Programs are Coach Pro / gym.
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_programs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeArchived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only safety profile. The description adds the scope ('coach's programs') and the fields returned, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain the includeArchived option, default archival behavior, or any pagination or ordering 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?
The description is short and front-loads the resource description. The parenthetical efficiently lists return attributes, though the closing sentence 'Programs are Coach Pro / gym' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer.
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 read-only list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the resource and returned fields. It remains incomplete on the includeArchived parameter and default filtering behavior, which an agent would need in order to call it correctly.
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 single parameter includeArchived is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists output fields but provides no meaning for the only input parameter, leaving the agent to infer its effect.
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 identifies the resource as the coach's programs and lists the returned fields (name, length in days, version, client count), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with get_program or list_program_enrollments, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_program, list_program_enrollments, or list_program_occurrences. The sentence 'Programs are Coach Pro / gym' provides context about the product area but does not state any usage conditions or exclusions.
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.