list_reading_listsView your Medium reading lists and saved posts with item counts. Get an overview of all named lists to manage your saved content.
The user's reading list (saved posts) and their named lists, with item counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying both the default reading list and named lists, plus item counts, which helps set expectations for the output. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether empty lists are included, but for a simple read-only listing this is acceptable.
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?
A single, focused sentence that conveys the scope and key output detail without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main object ('the user's reading list') and ends with the distinguishing count detail.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive: the saved-posts reading list and named lists with item counts. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape or whether the default list is included separately, but the essential information is present.
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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information burden on the description. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and instead communicates what the result contains, which is the relevant semantic information here.
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 identifies the resource—the user's reading list and named lists—and specifies that item counts are included. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the meaning is unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_list by focusing on list overviews with counts rather than list contents.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_list or get_feed. The description implies it is for viewing a summary of saved posts and named lists, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.