list_programacaoChannels with a collected TV guide, up to 48 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search in the channel name across the whole collection, up to 80 characters. | |
| depois | No | Exclusive ID of the last row; use `proximo`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / depois / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID exclusivo da última linha; use proximo."New value: +"Exclusive ID of the last row; use `proximo`."Input schema / properties / q / descriptionPrevious value: -"Busca no nome do canal em todo o acervo; até 80 caracteres."New value: +"Search in the channel name across the whole collection, up to 80 characters."Input schema / properties / qAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Busca no nome do canal em todo o acervo; até 80 caracteres.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": "string"
+}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 contributes real behavioral context by disclosing the page size cap ('up to 48 per page'), but it says nothing about how to advance pages or what a returned channel entry contains.
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 no filler, and the scope qualifier is front-loaded before the pagination note. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely tight.
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, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only partly does so ('channels with a collected TV guide'). For a simple two-optional-param read tool this is minimally adequate, but the term 'collected TV guide' and the cursor workflow are left for the agent to reconstruct from the schema.
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 both `q` and `depois` are already documented (including the pointer to `proximo`), making 3 the baseline. The description adds no extra meaning about search semantics or cursor behavior beyond the schema.
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 names the resource (channels) and the scope filter (only those with a collected TV guide), which is a specific verb+resource statement an agent can act on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-siblings like search_channels, get_programacao, or list_tags, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over search_channels when browsing guide-capable channels, nor when to reach for get_programacao instead. The only implicit cue is the pagination limit.
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.