Retrieve member-promoted work from the commons feed, newest first. Returns member-tier cards that the library amplified but did not verify.
[KEEP · internal] What the fellowship has put on the commons — promoted member work, newest first. Every card is a member's own work at the member tier: the library amplified it; the library did not verify it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: results are ordered newest first, every card is a member's own work at the 'member' tier, and the library amplified but did not verify it. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but the verification caveat and ordering are substantive behavioral context.
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 two sentences plus a short internal tag, with the core scope front-loaded and no redundant restatement. The second sentence adds a distinct verification caveat rather than padding, though the bracket prefix is slightly extraneous metadata.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description conveys purpose, ordering, and verification status. It is incomplete on the 'limit' parameter and on when to use it over sibling read tools, which leaves gaps an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.
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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions 'limit' or explains what it controls. With low coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter semantics at all.
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 states a specific resource ('the commons') and its contents ('promoted member work'), plus ordering ('newest first'), so the agent knows what this tool reads. However, it does not differentiate this read path from siblings like shelf_read, cards_browse, or card_get, leaving sibling selection to inference.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternative tools. The '[KEEP · internal]' tag hints at restricted use but does not constitute actionable usage direction against the many read siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.