Show the current user's saved progress across audiobooks and podcasts, including completion percentage and exact positions for resuming playback.
Get me progress.
GET /api/me/progress
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP verb and path, such as what data is returned, how it is scoped, or whether it reflects only currently in-progress items.
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 very short but the main phrase 'Get me progress' carries no additional information beyond the tool name. The HTTP line adds some concrete value, but the overall structure is under-specified rather than deliberately concise.
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?
Despite a simple schema and supportive annotations, the description does not explain what the response contains or how this endpoint relates to other progress-related endpoints. An agent would have difficulty knowing whether this tool returns all user progress, only items in progress, or a summary without external knowledge.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description being non-informative about parameters is acceptable; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is high.
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 'Get me progress' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no specifics about what 'progress' means or what the returned data represents. It does not differentiate from closely related siblings like list_me_items_in_progress or get_me_progress_by_id_by_episode_id.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between list_me_progress and the many other progress-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.