get_seriesRetrieve all series on Misar.Blog to manage and review your blog content collections in one place.
List all your series on Misar.Blog
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": "get_series"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that results are limited to the caller's own series and ties the tool to the Misar.Blog service, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or limits.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb. It is arguably too terse for a tool on a platform with many series-related siblings, but nothing is wasted.
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 no-parameter, read-only list with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain (result ordering/size), which are not critical given the simplicity.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no argument semantics for the description to clarify and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description.
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 and resource ('List all your series'), and the word 'all' plus the possessive 'your' makes clear it is a complete enumeration scoped to the authenticated user. It is distinguishable by name from create_series and add_to_series, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those mutation siblings.
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?
Usage is implied by the obvious read-only listing intent, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus create_series, add_to_series, or search-style siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.