editionsList The Guardian's geographic editions (UK, US, Australia, International). Returns edition IDs and hostnames. Use to discover edition-specific content streams before filtering search() by edition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "q": "uk"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Guardian editions",
+ "properties": {
+ "response": {
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Array of edition results",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "apiUrl": {
+ "description": "Edition API endpoint",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Edition ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "webTitle": {
+ "description": "Edition web title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "webUrl": {
+ "description": "Edition web URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Response status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "userTier": {
+ "description": "User tier level",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns edition IDs and hostnames, which is useful but not rich. 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?
The description is two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose, output, and usage. No wasted words.
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 output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it omits explanation of the 'q' parameter, leaving a gap in completeness.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'q' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'q' at all, failing to explain its purpose (filtering?) as suggested by the example. The description should compensate for the missing schema docs but does not.
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', the resource 'The Guardian's geographic editions', and lists specific editions. It also mentions returns edition IDs and hostnames, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sections'.
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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use to discover edition-specific content streams before filtering search() by edition.' This provides clear context. No exclusions are needed given the simplicity.
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.