Retrieve a stream's most recently active topics, newest first, capped at 100 results, to find current discussions before posting or reading. Useful for locating the right topic to join.
The stream's most recently active topics, newest first. limit is capped at 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing result ordering (newest first) and the hard cap of 100 on limit, but it does not say whether an over-limit value is clamped or rejected, nor whether results are paginated or truncated.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering before the constraint. Nothing is redundant, though the extreme terseness leaves the ambiguities noted elsewhere unaddressed rather than merely avoided.
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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), yet the description refers to 'the stream's' topics while the schema exposes no stream parameter, leaving the scope undefined. For a read tool with no output schema, the description should at least say which stream is used and roughly what each returned topic contains.
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 bare 'limit' integer with default 20 carries no meaning on its own; the description partially compensates by stating the maximum of 100. It still omits what limit counts (topics) and what happens at the boundary, so the single parameter is only half-explained.
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 identifies the resource (a stream's most recently active topics) and the ordering (newest first), which loosely distinguishes it from message-oriented siblings like zulip_read and zulip_search. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb (list/retrieve), and it never names the siblings or clarifies the relationship to them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this to discover which topics exist before reading messages, and no alternative (zulip_read, zulip_search) is mentioned as a substitute or complement. The agent must infer the tool's role from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.