Retrieve available speakers with their search slugs and talk counts, so you can identify a speaker and filter General Conference or BYU speech searches.
List the speakers (with the slug to pass to search) and how many talks each has.
| 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 burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses that the output includes slugs and talk counts, but it does not state side-effect behavior, permissions, or pagination expectations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds useful information without disrupting conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly naming when to use it relative to list_talks, but nothing essential is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('List the speakers') and adds the useful detail that each speaker includes a slug and talk count. It implicitly distinguishes this from list_talks by focusing on speakers and their talk counts, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools.
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 parenthetical 'with the slug to pass to search' gives a clear usage hint that this tool is a precursor to the search tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_talks or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.