Fetch upcoming anime episode broadcasts, including episode number, air time, countdown, and title, sorted soonest first and paginated for easy tracking.
Upcoming anime airing schedule. Returns upcoming anime episode broadcasts (episode number, air time, countdown, and the title), soonest first, paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number, default 1 | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, default 20, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningfully: it discloses the returned fields (episode number, air time, countdown, title), the sort order ('soonest first'), and pagination behavior. It omits coverage scope (global vs. region) and any result-count behavior, but this is solid disclosure for a read-only list tool.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the scoping word 'Upcoming' is front-loaded. The first sentence is slightly redundant with the opening of the second ('Returns upcoming anime episode broadcasts'), a minor waste.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it lists the key fields, ordering, and pagination. For a two-parameter list tool this is nearly complete, with only region/scope coverage left unaddressed.
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 fully documents page and per_page. The description only adds the word 'paginated', which confirms pagination exists but adds no syntax or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific resource ('anime airing schedule') and specifies the scope as 'upcoming' broadcasts, which no sibling tool covers. It is clear and distinct, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with related siblings like anime_title or anime_search.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'upcoming anime airing schedule' — an agent can infer you call it to find what is airing soon. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, so it stays at the minimum viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.