PodHome MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data can be included (transcripts, chapters, downloads, people) but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a listing tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. While the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, it's organized and front-loaded. The description avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter section could be more concise given the schema coverage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other aspects like authentication or error handling are missing.

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 high (83%), with most parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., status filter values are explained). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely listing parameter names without additional context. However, the schema does most of the work, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List episodes for a specific show.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('episodes'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_shows' or 'modify_episode' beyond the obvious resource difference. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling-specific distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid show slug), comparison to other listing tools like 'list_shows', or context about when filtering by status or including additional data is appropriate. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.