List all ChangeGamer resources with metadata and absolute URLs. Returns slug, title, description, category, tags, updated date, premium flag, and HTML/Markdown/JSON variant URLs. No body content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides key behavioral trait: 'No body content' and lists returned fields, but lacks detail on pagination, sorting, auth requirements, or limits. No annotations provided to supplement.
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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded main action and efficient listing of returns; no redundant words.
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?
Complete enough for a parameterless list tool with explicit field listing, but lacks optional details on ordering or error handling.
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?
No parameters exist; description adds meaning by detailing what the tool returns (slug, title, URLs, etc.), compensating for absence of output schema.
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?
Clearly states 'List all ChangeGamer resources', specifies the verb and resource scope, and distinguishes from siblings like get_resource (singular) and search_resources (filtered).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives; does not state 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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type: articles, resources, corpus, stats, and articles. The main ambiguity is the access/pricing/payment cluster (`check_access`, `get_access_info`, `get_pricing`, `get_payment_info`), which agents could confuse despite distinct descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern, using `get_*`, `list_*`, and `search_*` prefixes. The naming stays readable and predictable even with broader tools like `search` and `search_resources`.
14 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, and each major retrieval goal has a dedicated tool. It is slightly heavy because the access/pricing/payment information could arguably be consolidated, but it is not bloated.
The server covers discovery, listing, searching, fetching, corpus ingestion, editorial articles, stats, and access/pricing verification. As a read-only content/access server, full CRUD is not expected, though there is no direct category-based batch filter beyond a general search.