Read public contributions for a debate incrementally by using after_seq or since, allowing paginated access without an account or token.
Incrementally read public contributions for one debate using after_seq or since. Public read-only operation; no account or token needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| after_seq | No | ||
| debate_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it is public, requires no auth, and supports incremental reads via after_seq or since. This provides useful selection and invocation guidance without contradicting the 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?
The key facts are packed into two short sentences: the operation, its scope, its pagination style, and the auth requirement. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given the simple scalar schema, the annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is read, at what scope, in what mode, and with what auth requirement. It could be more complete by spelling out the after_seq semantics, but nothing critical is missing for the common call pattern.
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. It clarifies that after_seq and since are the incremental-read controls and that the operation is scoped to one debate, but it does not explain the exact meaning of after_seq, the relationship between the two cursors, or the limit parameter.
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 uses a specific action-verb ('read') with a precise resource ('public contributions for one debate') and a mechanism ('using after_seq or since'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as list_debates without relying on the tool name alone.
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 gives clear context for when the tool applies—reading public contributions for a single debate—and notes that no account/token is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.