Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uleszka

uleszka

by jokerwader
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Spis treści archiwum

list_articles
Read-only

Lists archived uleszka.net articles in original site order, grouped by section, returning ID, title, length and part count; optionally filter by section name.

Instructions

Lists all articles of the uleszka.net archive (Polish) in the original site order, grouped by section (dział). Returns id, title, length and number of parts for each article. Optionally filter by section name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectionNoNazwa działu, np. „Strona główna”, „Cywilizacja Bogów”, „Zapomniana medycyna”, „Różności”, „Pamiętam”

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, while the description adds ordering behavior, section grouping, returned fields (id, title, length, number of parts), and optional filtering. It does not mention pagination, result-size limits, or performance characteristics, which are the main remaining behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two efficient sentences with no filler. Purpose, return fields, grouping, and optional filtering are front-loaded in a logical order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description discloses the key return fields and grouping behavior. It is mostly complete, though it could clarify whether results are paginated or bounded and the exact shape of the grouped output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single optional section parameter is already well documented with examples. The description restates that filtering is optional but adds no extra syntax or format details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: lists all articles of the uleszka.net archive. It adds scope details—Polish archive, original site order, grouped by section—and clearly frames the tool as an exhaustive index rather than a search or article reader.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for use: browsing the archive table of contents, optionally filtered by section. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as search or read_article, but the intended use is clear from the scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools