top_mangaList top-ranked manga from Kitsu sorted by popularityRank (default) or ratingRank; returns up to 20 entries with title, rank, synopsis, and rating.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "by": "ratingRank",
+ "limit": 15
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Kitsu JSON:API response for top manga list",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description's addition of the sortable ranks and the 20-entry cap provides useful behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.
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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence, conveying all essential information without waste.
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?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, so the description covers the needed context: source, sorting, result count, and fields. No significant gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameters. It explains both 'by' (popularityRank default or ratingRank) and 'limit' (up to 20 entries), making the parameter meanings clear.
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 identifies the tool's function: listing top-ranked manga from Kitsu, with specific sorting options (popularityRank or ratingRank) and return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like top_anime and search_manga.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (for top-ranked lists) by stating the default sort and the cap of 20 entries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_manga for filtered queries, so it only earns a 4.
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.