list_wwdc_yearsList WWDC years with session counts and totals to check available Apple developer sessions and find how many include code and transcripts.
The WWDC years in the bundled data, each with its session count, plus the total and how many sessions have code and transcripts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully discloses the return shape — per-year session counts plus totals for code and transcript availability — rather than leaving an agent blind, which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention the data source freshness or format beyond 'bundled data'.
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 no boilerplate. It is packed with several clauses (per-year counts, totals, code/transcript counts) but each clause conveys distinct return information, so nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description bears the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so adequately for a fixed-shape listing tool. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance among the many sibling tools.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side; the schema is trivially complete.
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?
States a specific resource (WWDC years) and describes the exact payload: per-year session counts plus aggregate totals for sessions with code and transcripts. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_wwdc_videos or browse_wwdc_topics, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 whatsoever. With 19 sibling tools in the WWDC/doc space, the agent gets no signal about when to reach for this year-level rollup versus search_wwdc_content, browse_wwdc_topics, or list_wwdc_videos.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.