list_by_age_bandBrowse lessons, books, booklets, audio, and demos for a chosen age band. Filter by subject or type and use cursor to page results.
Page lessons, books, booklets, audio, and demos for one age band. Optional subject and type filters. cursor is opaque; pass nextCursor back for the next page. Default limit 20.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| band | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| subject | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: the cursor is opaque, nextCursor is passed back for the next page, and the default limit is 20. Return shape details beyond the cursor hint are still absent.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by filters and pagination mechanics; every sentence carries information. The enumerated content-type list is slightly verbose but justified for scoping.
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, the description usefully discloses the pagination contract (opaque cursor, nextCursor, default limit) that an agent needs to iterate pages. What remains thin is the age-band enum semantics and differentiation from sibling search 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for cursor (opaque, echo nextCursor back), limit (default 20), and the subject/type filters. It does not explain the band parameter beyond "one age band," nor that it is required or what the four band values mean.
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 verb (page) and resource set (lessons, books, booklets, audio, demos) scoped to one age band, plus the filter axes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never contrasts itself with the similar sibling search_content, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
"Optional subject and type filters" and the pagination instruction imply browsing-by-band usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus search_content or list_courses. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.