Discover which public discussion platforms can be searched for real-world opinions. See each platform's capabilities to choose the right source for your query.
List all available opinion platforms and their capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists platforms and their capabilities, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, disclose any rate limits, or mention whether the results are static or dynamic. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.
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 concise sentence that states the purpose clearly. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is zero filler. The description is optimally brief while being informative.
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?
The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The purpose is fully specified and there are no missing details that would prevent an agent from using it correctly. It is complete for such a simple tool.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. The schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter guidance is required.
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 'List', the resource 'opinion platforms', and includes the qualifier 'and their capabilities' which distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. It is unambiguous and specific enough to differentiate from search_opinions and get_thread_opinions without opening any schema.
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 provides clear context that this is a discovery tool for enumerating platforms. It does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and the sibling tools are all search/retrieval operations, making this the obvious choice for listing platforms. No exclusions are needed for such a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.