Fetch the current GDELT Television 2.0 AI station list to identify available stations for TV news monitoring.
List GDELT Television 2.0 AI stations. Return GDELT's own current list of Television 2.0 AI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool lists GDELT's current stations, adding minimal information beyond the name; it does not mention response format, pagination, freshness limitations, or auth requirements. This is a simple read operation, but the disclosure is thin.
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 two sentences are highly redundant: 'List GDELT Television 2.0 AI stations' and 'Return GDELT's own current list of Television 2.0 AI' say essentially the same thing. The second sentence adds almost no information and should have been merged, so the description is not efficiently structured.
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 states the core purpose adequately, but there is no output schema and no elaboration on the returned station details or list structure. Given the tool name includes 'stationdetails,' an agent might expect richer metadata, and the description does not clarify what fields or format are returned.
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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description confirms this by indicating a self-contained list call with no required inputs, and there is nothing further the description needs to explain about parameter values.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GDELT Television 2.0 AI stations'), clearly stating what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from adjacent GDELT siblings like gdelt_tv_stationchart or gdelt_tv_search, but the phrase "GDELT's own current list" conveys a catalog-style endpoint.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many GDELT sibling tools. The description merely restates the action and gives no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual hints about whether this is the right call for station metadata vs. charts or searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.