get_spoiler_limitRetrieves the current spoiler limit, showing the last chapter read or null if none is set, to tailor One Piece content accordingly.
The current spoiler limit (last chapter the user has read), or null if none is set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description goes beyond them by clarifying the null-when-unset behavior and the exact meaning of 'spoiler limit,' which is essential since there is no output schema. No side effects or auth caveats are mentioned, but none are needed for this tool.
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 sentence provides the full semantic definition with no filler. The key value ('last chapter the user has read') is front-loaded, and the null case is included in the same breath.
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?
Given zero parameters and a clear, self-contained definition of the return value, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by directly stating the possible outcomes.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This earns the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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 unambiguously defines the resource and its value: the current spoiler limit as the last chapter the user has read, with null when unset. This also distinguishes it from the sibling set_spoiler_limit, which mutates rather than retrieves.
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 this is the read-side counterpart to set_spoiler_limit, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of an alternative. For a simple parameterless getter this is acceptable, but the guidance is left to inference rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.