random_poemsFetch one or more random public-domain poems from PoetryDB. Returns full poem text (capped). Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of random poems to return (default 1, max 10). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "count": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "count": 5
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds beyond by noting 'capped' poem text and 'Keyless' (no authentication needed), which provides useful behavioral context without contradicting 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 description is extremely concise, using two short sentences that immediately convey purpose and key traits. No filler or redundant information.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, rich annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return type (full poem text capped) and key trait (keyless). Could mention return structure or typical usage examples, but sufficient for its complexity.
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 100% (count parameter fully described). The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (Fetch), the resource (random public-domain poems from PoetryDB), and the return (full poem text, capped). It distinguishes from siblings like search_poems or get_poem_lines by specifying randomness and public-domain.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like search_poems and get_poem_lines exist, but no comparisons or exclusions are given. 'Keyless' hints at no auth, but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.