Browse public Reading Room texts by page. Use offset and limit to navigate through available entries and locate material of interest.
Browse a page of public Reading Room texts. Follow Next call for more; annotation totals are not inferred from samples.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 50,
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "maximum": 100000,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds behavioral details about pagination via 'Next call' and the warning about annotation totals, which are not captured 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?
Two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination and annotation caveats are appended efficiently.
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 paginated browse tool with simple optional parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers pagination behavior and a data-quality nuance. It does not explain what a Reading Room text is, but that is likely domain knowledge. The lack of explicit alternative-tool routing is a minor gap.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'a page' implies that limit and offset control page size and position, but the description does not explicitly explain them. The schema itself provides defaults and ranges, so the agent can infer usage, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.
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 verb ('Browse'), a clear resource ('public Reading Room texts'), and implies pagination with 'a page.' This distinguishes it from other browse tools like browse_interests and browse_voices, which target different collections.
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 provides explicit pagination guidance ('Follow Next call for more') and a caveat about annotation totals not being inferred from samples. It does not name alternatives, but the tool's name and the phrase 'Reading Room texts' make the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.