Browse public library metadata, filtered by type and access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| access | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| locale | No | MCP transport locale; not a service input field. | de |
| pathId | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | No | Transport retry key, forwarded as Idempotency-Key. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| messages | Yes | ||
| request_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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the catalog is public metadata; it omits pagination/cursor behavior and the meaning of the transport-only params, which matter for a browse operation that could return a large catalog.
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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is arguably over-compressed for a 7-parameter tool, but nothing is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a filterable, paginated catalog browse the description leaves cursor pagination, page size defaults, and the pathId dimension entirely unexplained. Given 7 parameters and low schema coverage, this is insufficient.
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 only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions only 'type' and 'access' filtering and says nothing about limit, cursor pagination, pathId, or the transport-only locale/idempotencyKey fields.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Browse public library metadata') plus the filtering dimensions ('type and access'), which is clear on its own. It implicitly contrasts with the many single-item siblings (academy_prompt, academy_playbook) and the search sibling, but never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
'Browse' versus the sibling 'academy_search' hints at enumeration-style usage, and 'public' hints at excluding the premium siblings, but neither condition is stated. No when-not guidance or prerequisite is given.
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.