wwdc_list_topicsLists the top topics covered across WWDC sessions with counts, helping you identify which Apple technologies and frameworks appear most often in the session catalog.
Top topics across WWDC sessions with counts (e.g. SwiftUI, Swift, AI, visionOS).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | Response format | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are ranked topics with counts, which is mild output context, but says nothing about ordering, truncation at the limit, or default result size.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and examples parenthetically supplied. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail.
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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the essentials are present. But with two similar siblings and a half-documented parameter set, an agent still lacks what it needs to invoke this correctly versus wwdc_topics_by_year.
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 only 50% – 'format' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit (default 20, max 100) or explain how ranking interacts with it.
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+resource ('Top topics across WWDC sessions') and clarifies the payload includes counts with concrete topic examples. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling wwdc_topics_by_year, leaving the agent to infer that this one is the all-years aggregate.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The closest sibling, wwdc_topics_by_year, is never mentioned even though an agent must choose between them for a topic-listing request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.