List public Foreign Policy Live conversations so you can browse available discussions and filter by year.
List Foreign Policy Live conversations. Returns Foreign Policy's public FP Live conversation directory. The upstream renders the complete all-conversations list and applies year filtering in the browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It notes that the upstream renders the complete list and applies year filtering in the browser, implying the tool returns all conversations without filtering. It does not mention output format, pagination, or any limits, but the disclosed public-scope and year-filtering behavior add some value.
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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a behavioral nuance about year filtering. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless list tool, the description covers the basic function but does not describe the return structure or any output fields. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without information about what the directory entries contain (e.g., titles, dates, links). This is a notable gap for a tool that returns a list.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Foreign Policy Live conversations', and identifies it as the public FP Live conversation directory. It distinguishes from the sibling 'foreignpolicy_live_detail' by implying this is the listing tool, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 like foreignpolicy_live_detail. It does not state exclusions or conditions for selecting this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer that it is the list-getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.