get_listRetrieve posts from a specified Medium reading list or named list, sorted by most recently added.
Posts saved in the reading list or one of the user's named lists, most recently added first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | "reading-list" (default) or the name / id of one of the user's lists, as shown by list_reading_lists. | reading-list |
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | nextCursor from a previous call. |
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 the description doesn't need to cover those. It does add the ordering (most recently added first), which is useful, but it omits details like pagination behavior via cursor or error handling when a list is not found. The added context is minimal but not contradictory.
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 a single, focused sentence that states the primary action and ordering. It's efficient with no redundancy and front-loads the core purpose.
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?
For a read-only list retrieval tool with open-world semantics and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks usage guidance and pagination details. The schema covers parameters well, so the main gap is absence of when-to-use context, which would round out completeness.
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 67% (list and cursor have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. Since coverage is above 50%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 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 clearly states the tool retrieves posts from a reading list or named lists, ordered by most recent first. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_feed, get_recent_posts, and search_posts by identifying the specific resource (lists) and the ordering behavior.
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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It doesn't compare with get_feed or get_recent_posts, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a list name from list_reading_lists. Usage context is entirely implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.