news_listGame news posted by the immortals, newest first: id, date, author, subject. A query keeps posts whose subject or text has every word of it. Posts are in the language they were written in, mostly Ukrainian, the oldest Russian. Read one with news_get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: default newest-first ordering, that results are summaries (id, date, author, subject) rather than full text, and the language caveat about content mix.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filtering semantics, then the language caveat and sibling pointer. No filler.
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 correctly enumerates the returned fields and warns that full text requires news_get. Only the limit parameter's behavior (paging/top-N) is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter list tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the query's AND semantics across subject and text, which is real added value. The limit parameter is left unmentioned, though the schema's default and 1-50 range partially compensate.
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 ('Game news posted by the immortals, newest first') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what this lists. It also explicitly points to news_get for single-post reads, distinguishing it from that sibling.
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?
Explicitly routes to news_get for reading a full post, and explains what the query parameter does at a semantic level (all-words matching over subject and text). No explicit when-not-to-use case is given, but the list-vs-get split is clear.
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.