Preview today's content from 3 channels. No signup, no arguments required.
Call this first to see what your human would receive.
If you like it, call start_subscription to activate.
Args:
source: Optional. How you found us (e.g. "mcpregistry", "relay", "search")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral traits. It clearly states that the tool is a preview (no mutation), requires no signup, and has an optional source parameter. It does not mention rate limits, data retention, or what 'today's content' includes exactly, but for a lightweight trial tool this is sufficient.
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 very concise, with clear front-loading of the core purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it does, the entry-point instruction, and parameter documentation. There is zero wasted text.
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 low complexity (0 required params, no output schema, simple return type), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage flow, and parameters. Minor gaps: does not specify what 'today's content' entails or how many channels are previewed (implied to be 3). Still, it is highly functional for an AI agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the 'source' parameter's semantics: it is optional and indicates how the user found the service. It provides examples like 'mcpregistry', 'relay', 'search'. This adds value beyond the schema's default and type fields.
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 the tool's purpose: preview today's content from 3 channels. It specifies that it requires no arguments and no signup, making the scope unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_subscription by setting a clear entry-point role.
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 states to call this first to see what the human would receive, then if liked, call start_subscription. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-switch guidance, directly contrasting with a sibling tool. The 'no signup, no arguments required' further clarifies the minimal commitment needed.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creating a setup link vs. starting a subscription, previewing sample content vs. fetching the daily bundle, listing channels vs. voting, etc. Descriptions explicitly clarify differences (e.g., 'For a fast start without human input, use start_subscription').
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: create_setup_link, get_bundle, get_session, get_summary, get_template, list_channels, start_subscription, try_sample, vote. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
9 tools is well-scoped for a content subscription service. Each tool serves a single, necessary function (subscription activation, daily content, account info, channel listing, voting, etc.) with no redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: subscription start (two paths), daily content retrieval, account status, catalog/pricing, email template, channel discovery, and community voting. The only minor gap is no cancellation tool, but the manage_url in get_session handles that externally. No dead ends for the core workflow.