Lists all visible channels only when the caller explicitly asks to view the channel directory.
List all visible channels. Use ONLY when the caller explicitly asks to view the channel directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List all visible channels" usefully discloses permission-based scoping and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about pagination, result size, ordering, or auth requirements — gaps that matter for a directory listing with no output schema.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste: what it does first, then the usage restriction. Nothing is buried or repeated.
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 zero-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what and when. The only shortfall is that an agent still cannot tell how large a result to expect or whether results are truncated.
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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.
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 and resource ("List all visible channels") and adds a scope qualifier ("visible") that tells the agent this is a directory enumeration, not a lookup. It is clearly distinct from get_channel_detail_via_channel_name_or_id and create_channel, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 second sentence gives an explicit, restrictive when-to-use condition: only when the caller explicitly asks to view the channel directory. That is a real gating rule rather than vague guidance, but it does not point to the alternative (get_channel_detail) for the single-channel case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.