Retrieve active affiliate IDs and names from TheRundown data, excluding retired ones, to identify current publishers available for reference.
List currently published affiliate IDs and names, excluding retired affiliates. Do not use a catalog row as proof of plan access or an open offer for a sport or market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the result is current and excludes retired affiliates, and the warning about not treating catalog rows as proof of a plan or opportunity. No contradictions exist.
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 concise sentences, the first front-loads the action and scope, the second is a purposeful caveat. Every phrase earns its place and nothing is redundant.
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 parameter-less list tool, the description fully covers the output content (IDs and names), the output scope (currently published, excluding retired), and includes an important caveat on interpretation. No output schema is required, and the description gives enough context to call the tool correctly.
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 params and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters or add field-level details.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List currently published affiliate IDs and names'. It clearly scopes the list to current, non-retired affiliates, which makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like list_sports or list_markets without needing to open their schemas.
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?
The usage is implied by the tool's purpose, and the caveat warns against using catalog rows as proof of plan access or open offer. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling list tools or state when to switch to alternatives, so it misses the top levels of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.