get_account_podcastRead a podcast's full account-accessible record.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"podcast_id": "<podcast_id>"
},
"name": "get_account_podcast"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| podcast_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the qualifier 'account-accessible', which implies the result is limited to podcasts the connected account can see — useful but thin, with no mention of failure behavior for inaccessible or unknown IDs.
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?
A single eleven-word sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded; nothing is padded. Its brevity is appropriate, though the same brevity is what leaves the gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description must carry the burden of explaining what a 'full record' contains and which ID form is expected. It does neither, and it offers no differentiation from the several podcast-related siblings, so an agent could easily call the wrong tool.
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% and the sole parameter podcast_id is completely undocumented. Because siblings include both search_podcasts and search_account_podcasts, it is genuinely ambiguous whether this takes an internal account podcast ID or a public podcast ID, and the description does nothing to resolve that.
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 'Read' plus the resource 'podcast's full account-accessible record' gives a workable purpose, and 'account-accessible' hints that this is account-scoped rather than the global catalog. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_podcast_details, search_account_podcasts, or read_podcast_media_list, so an agent cannot confidently tell which of these returns the 'full record'.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_podcast_details or search_account_podcasts, nor any prerequisite such as needing the podcast already connected to the account. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
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.