get_programacaoThe last TV guide available for the channel and up to 20 dates of its history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The stored slug of the channel, from the collection. | |
| antes | No | Exclusive day to page through the earlier days; use `guia.proximo`. | |
| programa | No | Name of a show: brings in proximos its airings in the next days; up to 100 characters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / programaAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Name of a show: brings in proximos its airings in the next days; up to 100 characters.",
+ "maxLength": 100,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / antes / descriptionPrevious value: -"Dia exclusivo para paginar os dias anteriores; use guia.proximo."New value: +"Exclusive day to page through the earlier days; use `guia.proximo`."Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionPrevious value: -"Slug persistido do canal, vindo da coleção."New value: +"The stored slug of the channel, from the collection."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: results are capped at the last guide plus up to 20 historical dates. It omits how paging interacts with that cap, but with annotations present a 3 is fair.
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 sentence with no padding, front-loading the core result. The phrasing 'up to 20 dates of its history' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.
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?
With no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the result-size bound adequately. It leaves the relationship to similar guide tools and the paging behavior unexplained, which matters given the crowded sibling set.
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%, so slug, antes and programa are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'history dates' loosely relates to the `antes` paging parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 implies a fetch of the latest TV guide for a channel plus up to 20 days of history, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never states the verb explicitly and does nothing to separate this from very similar siblings such as get_channel_guide, get_programacao_dia, and list_programacao.
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?
There is no indication of when to choose this tool over the near-identical siblings (get_channel_guide, get_programacao_dia, get_api_x402_programacao_by_slug*). The history limit is stated but no selection guidance or prerequisites are offered.
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.