list_topicsList the subject areas covered on WhyIsMy.org with an article count for each. Takes no arguments. Use the returned slugs as the topic argument to search_articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover safety and idempotency. Description adds no extra behavioral traits beyond stating 'Takes no arguments', which aligns with annotations. No contradiction.
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 purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Without an output schema, description sufficiently describes return: subject areas with article count and slugs. Could mention sorting or more detail on output structure, but adequate for a simple list 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?
No parameters exist, so description correctly states 'Takes no arguments'. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and description adds clarity on absence of parameters.
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 verb 'list' and resource 'subject areas covered on WhyIsMy.org with an article count for each'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on topic listing rather than article retrieval.
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 says 'Takes no arguments' and advises to use returned slugs as argument to search_articles. Provides clear post-use guidance, though no when-not-to-use is needed for a simple list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.