List training episodes by providing route IDs in path parameters and optional filters, pagination, sorting, or include values in query parameters.
List training episodes. Calls GET /episodes. Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| path_params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says the call is `GET /episodes`, signaling a non-mutating read, and notes that filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values belong in the query. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or side effects, but for an idempotent read operation this is reasonable.
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 the purpose and endpoint front-loaded and the parameter routing appended in the second sentence. No filler or repetition.
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?
The description gives the endpoint, method, and parameter-placement rules, and an output schema is present to describe the return shape. It is complete enough for a simple list call, though it leaves `body` unexplained and gives no examples of accepted filter/sort values.
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 coverage is 0%, and the schema only offers generic `body`, `query`, and `path_params` objects. The description compensates by assigning route IDs to `path_params` and filtering/pagination/sorting/include values to `query`, which is essential. It does not address the `body` parameter or give concrete query-key names, so coverage remains partial.
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 the action ('List') and resource ('training episodes') explicitly, and pins the exact endpoint (`GET /episodes`). This distinguishes it from the sibling `get_episode` (collection vs single resource) and from list tools for other resources. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives—`get_episode` is never mentioned for single-item retrieval. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'List' and the endpoint. The parameter-placement note is about how to call, not about when to choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.