Podlings MCP

active_podlings_in_year

Retrieve Apache incubator podlings active during a specific year, with optional filtering by sponsor type (incubator, project, or unknown).

Instructions

Return the podlings that were active during a specific year.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "year": "<year>"
    },
    "name": "active_podlings_in_year"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	No	HTTPS URL or local path to podlings.xml
`sponsor_type`	No	Optional sponsor type filter, defaults to incubator: incubator, project, or unknown
`year`	Yes	Required year to inspect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return', implying a read operation, but does not confirm no side effects, no data modification, or any other behavioral traits like error handling or performance.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. However, it could be considered under-specified given the number of similar siblings.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a very similar sibling tool, the description lacks context for an agent to reliably select this tool. It does not explain the relationship to 'active_podlings_by_year' or what constitutes 'active' in this context.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or default behaviors.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it returns podlings active during a specific year, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'active_podlings_by_year', which appears to have an identical purpose, missing the opportunity to clarify any distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'active_podlings_by_year' or other year-based podling tools. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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