Fetch Metaculus question rows for a public project by slug, with an optional row limit. Invalid slugs return a 404 error.
Metaculus project questions. Returns Metaculus question rows for one public project, filtered by its slug. A slug that does not exist returns 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Metaculus project slug | |
| limit | No | Rows to return, default 10, max 25 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that a nonexistent slug returns 404, and "public project" implies no auth requirement. However it says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema states.
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?
Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, the scoping constraint next, and the error behavior last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.
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 simple read-only listing tool with full param coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter, and error behavior adequately. It could say more about result ordering or how to obtain a valid slug, but nothing essential is 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces slug as the project filter but adds no syntax, format, or slug-discovery detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ("Returns") and resource ("Metaculus question rows") scoped to "one public project, filtered by its slug." The "public project" framing implicitly separates it from metaculus_category_questions and metaculus_tournament_questions, though those siblings are not named explicitly.
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 "one public project" scoping implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (category or tournament variants) to route the agent. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.