forum_topicFetch posts from any Nexus Mods forum topic by ID or URL, 25 per page, without requiring login.
Read posts of a forum topic (topic id or URL), 25 per page. Works without login.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| topic | Yes | Topic id (e.g. "13545622") or full topic URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Works without login' (auth not required) and '25 per page' (pagination size). No contradictions with annotations.
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 two concise clauses, front-loading the core action and key details. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers identification, pagination size, and auth requirement. However, it does not explicitly state how to navigate pages (e.g., 'use page parameter for later pages') or describe the return format, which could leave an agent uncertain about expected output. Given the simplicity, these are minor but noticeable gaps.
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 description coverage is 50% (topic has a description, page does not). The description reiterates topic format ('topic id or URL') already present in the schema, and mentions '25 per page' which implies pagination but does not explicitly explain the page parameter's role (e.g., default, how to get subsequent pages). It partially compensates for the missing page description but not fully.
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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('posts of a forum topic'), with input specification (topic id or URL) and pagination detail. It is distinct from sibling tools like forum_list (which lists topics) and forum_reply (which posts replies), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 description implies its use case—reading posts—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention exclusions. It is clear enough for a basic read operation, but lacks explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.