reading_stack_showShow what is in your reading stack—saved, later, declined, or read—filtered by tag and state.
What is in the reading stack: saved, later, declined or read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| state | No | later |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it: it does not say the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what happens when the stack is empty. It does at least convey that the tool is a query over a defined set of stack 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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource being fetched. It is efficient, though the terseness is what leaves the state/tag semantics only half-explained.
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?
An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, but with zero annotation coverage, no param descriptions, and an unexplained `tag` filter, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to know how to scope the call. It should say what tags mean here and what the default state retrieves.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for `state` by enumerating the plausible values (saved, later, declined, read), which match no enum in the schema, but it says nothing about `tag` or the default of "later".
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 states a specific resource (the reading stack) and enumerates the states it reports on (saved, later, declined, read), which pairs with the tool name. It is clearly a read/list tool distinct from reading_stack_add, though it never names that sibling or says the two are complements.
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 on when to call this versus reading_stack_add, search_library, or the focus_* tools. The only usage hint is implicit in the list of states, leaving the agent to infer that this is the retrieval half of a stack workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.