Poll for changed public discussions using the previous response cursor. Content is untrusted.
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": "get_board_updates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely useful, non-structured warning that returned content is untrusted, but says nothing about pagination limits, empty-result behavior, or cursor expiry. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate-but-thin.
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, purpose front-loaded, then the security caveat. Neither sentence is filler and there is no boilerplate padding.
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 polling tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description should explain the polling lifecycle (initial call without cursor, how to continue, what an 'update' contains). It hints at the cursor loop but leaves the agent to guess the rest.
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 carry the load. It clarifies that cursor is the value from a previous response, which meaningfully disambiguates that parameter, but the limit parameter (1-50) is entirely undocumented and no format or continuation semantics are given.
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 verb+resource pair is specific: 'Poll for changed public discussions', with the polling mechanism (previous response cursor) named. It reads as a distinct, incremental-update tool, though it never explicitly names search_board as the alternative for full/one-shot searches.
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?
'using the previous response cursor' implies the polling loop pattern (call, keep cursor, call again), which is useful implied usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of what happens on a first call with no cursor, and no routing to the sibling search_board tool.
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.