linuxdoRetrieve current hot trending topics from Linux.do community. Get real-time popular posts and discussions.
获取Linux.do热榜
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "linuxdo"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| noCache | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get hot list' without any behavioral details (e.g., caching, rate limits, or side effects). The agent has no insight into tool behavior.
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 description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and additional details.
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?
Given the tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the hot list contains, how to use parameters, or when to choose this tool.
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 two parameters (limit, noCache) but the description does not explain their meaning or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 'Get Linux.do hot list', specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which target different platforms. However, it is essentially a translation of the title.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are all similar 'get hot list' tools, so the description does not help differentiate beyond the platform name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.