Discourse MCP

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context: 'Results are permission-aware' (access control behavior) and details on query syntax and pagination limits (e.g., 'max 50' in schema), which are not covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and query language, followed by detailed syntax examples. It's efficient but slightly dense; every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured for readability.

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's complexity (rich query language, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers query syntax, permission-awareness, and pagination hints. However, it lacks explicit examples of return values or error handling, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'filter', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds semantics by explaining the query language syntax (e.g., key:value tokens, operators for categories/tags) and numeric/free-text matching, but this mostly elaborates on what the schema implies for the 'filter' parameter.

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 clearly states the verb ('filter') and resource ('topics'), specifying it uses a 'concise query language' for filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discourse_search' by focusing on structured query-based filtering rather than general search.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for filtering topics with a structured query language. It distinguishes from alternatives by implying this is for permission-aware, structured filtering, unlike general search tools in the sibling list.

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