List redacted cached New World Scheduler entities by type, with text search and pagination to find records without exposing sensitive data.
List redacted cached NWS entities with optional text filtering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| entity_type | Yes |
| 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that results are 'redacted' and 'cached' – useful, but silent on staleness, ordering, pagination semantics, and any auth requirements for a tool whose siblings include nws_authenticate. No contradiction, but far from adequate disclosure for an unannotated read 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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient rather than padded; the terseness is a coverage problem, not a verbosity problem.
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 values needn't be explained, but the required, enum-less entity_type parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no guidance on how listing relates to nws_get. For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this leaves the agent guessing.
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% across four parameters. The description only gestures at 'query' via 'optional text filtering' and never addresses the required 'entity_type', nor limit/offset. An agent cannot learn valid entity_type values or pagination behavior from either the schema or the description.
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?
States a clear verb (List) and a resource (NWS entities), with qualifiers 'redacted' and 'cached' that hint at the data's nature. But it never says what an 'NWS entity' is, and with siblings like nws_get, nws_entity_types and nws_describe_entity in the set, it does nothing to distinguish listing from fetching or describing.
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 statement of when to use this versus nws_get, nws_describe_entity or nws_entity_types, and no prerequisites such as prior authentication. The only usage hint is the phrase 'optional text filtering', which does not route the agent anywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.