Your episodes, plus the built-in examples you can read.
Your episodes, plus the built-in examples you can read.
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": "list_episodes"
}
}| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description does add one piece of non-annotation context: the result mixes the user's episodes with built-in examples, which matters for interpreting output. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the two groups are separated in the response.
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, and the most useful fact (scope includes built-in examples) is front-loaded after the resource. It is under-specified rather than padded, so conciseness is not the failing dimension.
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 zero-param read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what an entry looks like (titles? IDs usable with read_episode?). Without an output schema, that gap is left entirely to inference. Adequate but incomplete for an agent that must chain into read_episode.
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 the schema imposes no burden and the baseline is 4. No parameter meaning needs to be conveyed in prose.
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 names the resource (episodes) and clarifies the dataset composition — the user's own episodes plus built-in read-only examples. However, it omits a verb like 'list' and never states the shape of the result, so the purpose is inferable rather than stated. It does partially distinguish from siblings like read_episode and new_episode by implying a collection-level view.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus read_episode (for a specific episode) or studio_info/formats siblings. The phrase 'you can read' hints the built-in examples are readable but does not tell the agent to follow up with read_episode. No prerequisites, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.