list_publicationsRetrieves all publications available to the authenticated user so an agent can identify where to stage and publish podcast episodes.
List all publications available to the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the access scope ('available to the authenticated user'), implying results are limited to the caller and that auth is required, and 'list' implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result limits, which is a meaningful gap for a collection endpoint.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint appears immediately after the verb and resource. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the schema burden is minimal. However, the absence of annotations leaves the description responsible for safety and behavior disclosure, and it omits pagination, ordering, and any exclusivity versus list_drafts, so it is only minimally viable.
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 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No conflicting parameter hints are present.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('publications') with a scope qualifier ('available to the authenticated user'), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_drafts, but the resource noun makes the difference inferable.
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 instead of list_drafts or the draft-related siblings, and no stated prerequisites beyond a vague reference to being authenticated. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.