list_case_studiesDiscover GingerLive livestream campaign case studies with short excerpts and links, providing an overview of real advertising examples to guide campaign planning.
GingerLive campaign case studies, each with a short excerpt and a link. Call get_case_study with a slug for the full write-up.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the item format (excerpt and link) and points to detail retrieval, but it does not mention return container/pagination, sorting, or access constraints.
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 compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource, immediately identifies output contents, and adds a pointer to the sibling detail tool. No wasted words.
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 low-complexity, zero-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, item structure, and how to get more detail. It doesn't mention whether the list is complete/paginated or sort order, but this is a minor gap given no output schema and simple semantics.
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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter meanings to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate.
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+resource ('List case studies') and clearly distinguishes from sibling get_case_study by noting each item includes an excerpt and link. This identifies the tool's purpose and scope unambiguously.
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?
It explicitly tells the agent to call get_case_study with a slug for the full write-up, thereby setting when to use this list vs the detail sibling. This is an explicit alternative/usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.