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. | |
| pais | No | Two-letter country code of the channel (br, us); use `paises`. | |
| depois | No | Exclusive ID of the last row; use `proximo`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / paisAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Two-letter country code of the channel (br, us); use `paises`.",
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z]{2}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent listing operation. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — a maximum of 48 results per page — but does not explain what 'collected TV guide' means in terms of coverage, freshness, or whether results are ordered.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the pagination limit is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of ambiguity, but conciseness itself is strong.
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?
For a list endpoint with three optional filters and many closely related guide/search siblings, the description does not provide enough scope or routing information to know when this tool is the right choice. The schema fills in parameter details and annotations cover safety, but the description leaves a significant gap around differentiation from siblings.
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 the schema already documents q, pais, and depois, including the country-code pattern and cursor semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 names the resource ('channels with a collected TV guide') and the page size, but it is a noun phrase without a clear verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_programacao, get_programacao_dia, get_channel_guide, or search_channels. An agent can infer it lists channels that have guide data, but the purpose is not sharply defined.
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 statement of when to use this tool instead of the many related programming/search siblings like get_programacao, get_programacao_dia, or search_channels. The description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
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.