list_articlesList published articles, optionally on one shelf. Shelf names are case-insensitive. Pass cursor from the previous page. An unknown shelf returns the valid shelf list. [no key]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| shelf | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| articles | Yes | ||
| nextCursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "articles": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "nextCursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "articles"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new traits: shelf names are case-insensitive, cursor must come from the previous page, an unknown shelf returns the valid shelf list, and '[no key]' signals no auth is required. These go meaningfully beyond the structured hints.
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?
Four short, dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic '[no key]' fragment is efficient but slightly cryptic in phrasing.
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 not be explained, and the description fully covers the pagination and shelf-filter semantics an agent needs. It falls short only in omitting limit behavior and any routing cue toward sibling list/search tools.
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 all param meaning. It documents shelf (case-insensitivity, invalid-value behavior) and cursor (pagination source), but says nothing about limit (1-100) — leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
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+resource (List published articles) and scopes it with 'published' plus the optional shelf filter. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as search_articles or get_article, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Provides actionable usage hints — 'Pass cursor from the previous page' and 'optionally on one shelf' — which imply the browsing flow. However, it never states when to choose this tool over search_articles or find_articles_for_claim, leaving the alternative selection to inference.
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.