Retrieve radio stations sorted by vote count, with an optional limit to control how many results are returned.
Get the most-voted radio stations.
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": "radio_top_voted"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose itself: no default for limit, no ordering guarantees, no pagination or result-count behavior. For an open-world ranked list, some disclosure about the ranking window or default size would be valuable.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with a sibling that differs only by ranking metric.
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?
Simple read-only ranked-list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain. The description is adequate to identify the tool but leaves open what the ranking window is, how many results come back by default, and how it differs from radio_top_clicked.
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 single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description, so its meaning (max results returned) and default are undocumented anywhere. The name is mostly self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Get the most-voted radio stations,' which names both the action and the ordering criterion. It is distinguishable from radio_by_country and radio_by_tag by implication, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very close sibling radio_top_clicked.
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 mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. With siblings like radio_top_clicked, radio_search, and radio_by_country present, the choice between 'voted' versus 'clicked' ranking is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.