browse_episodesOpen an interactive episode picker (card grid with thumbnails) for the user to pick an episode to read. On hosts that render MCP Apps the grid is clickable; everywhere else a markdown table is returned. Optional query filters by title/host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Optional title/host filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the interactive nature and conditional rendering (grid vs. markdown table). This provides behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key behavioral detail. No wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, interactive UI), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and filtering. It could be considered complete for its purpose, though a note on returned data structure would enhance completeness.
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 description mentions 'query filters by title/host' which matches the query parameter, but adds no new information beyond the schema. The limit parameter is not described. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to fully compensate, leaving the limit parameter undocumented in the description.
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 clearly states it opens an interactive episode picker for selection. It mentions different rendering based on host capability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_episodes or search_episodes, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description implies usage for interactive episode selection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_episodes for simple listing, search_episodes for filtering). No when-not or alternative tool references.
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.
Tools are largely distinct, covering separate actions (search, get, list, generate, transcribe, save). The main potential confusion is between list_episodes and list_feed_episodes, but descriptions clearly separate local from external.
All tools follow consistent verb_noun snake_case patterns (get_, list_, search_, generate_, transcribe_, save/remove), with no mixed conventions or unexpected styles.
25 tools is at the high end for a server of this scope. The broad domain justifies many functions, but the count feels heavy and some tools could be consolidated without losing clarity.
Discovery, ingestion, transcription, lesson generation, and user account management are all well covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to delete or update lessons beyond save/remove.