Cross-podcast episode search by title/description AND parent podcast name/author. Returns local episodes only — for podcasts discoverable on PodcastIndex that aren't yet ingested, use list_feed_episodes instead. status: "transcribed" filters to ready-to-read; status: "untranscribed" to available-to-transcribe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Topic, keyword, or host name | |
| offset | No | ||
| status | No |
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 the critical context that results are limited to local episodes only. No contradictions; the description consistently implies a safe read operation. Some additional context like rate limits or pagination behavior is missing but not essential.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second gives exclusion criteria, third clarifies status parameter. No redundant or vague language. Front-loaded with the most important information.
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 absence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), the description provides enough context for an AI agent to understand the tool's role and when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning expected return format or pagination, but it is still sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.
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 only 25% (only query has a short description). The description adds meaning to the status parameter by explaining its filtering behavior. However, it does not provide additional semantics for query, limit, or offset beyond what the schema already provides (defaults, bounds). Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 performs cross-podcast episode search by title/description and parent podcast name/author. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_feed_episodes by specifying it returns only local episodes, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (searching local episodes) and when not (for podcasts not yet ingested, use list_feed_episodes). It also explains the status parameter filtering for transcribed vs untranscribed, providing clear usage context.
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.