browse_nonprofitsFind nonprofits on Every.org by cause. Provide a cause slug such as animals or climate; paginate results with page and take.
Browse Every.org nonprofits for one cause slug, such as animals or climate. Call list_causes for the published set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page number. Defaults to 1. | |
| take | No | Page size. Defaults to 10. Maximum 100. | |
| cause | Yes |
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 safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the cause-slug prerequisite but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a browse returns, which with a lower bar for annotated tools yields an adequate rather than rich score.
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 tight sentences, no filler, with the primary scope statement front-loaded before the pointer to list_causes. Every sentence carries information.
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 browse tool with no output schema and a simple flat schema, the description covers the required parameter's semantics and the prerequisite tool. Only the sibling-tool boundary (search_nonprofits) is left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 67%; page and take are self-documented in the schema, but cause has no schema description at all. The description compensates by defining cause as a single slug and giving example values (animals, climate), adding real meaning beyond minLength: 1.
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?
Specific verb (Browse) plus resource (Every.org nonprofits) and scope (one cause slug), with concrete slug examples (animals, climate). It explicitly routes to the sibling list_causes, so an agent can separate this from that tool, though it does not distinguish itself from search_nonprofits.
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 sentence 'Call list_causes for the published set' tells the agent how to obtain valid cause slugs, which is genuine prerequisite guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over search_nonprofits or get_nonprofit, so the when-to-use condition is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.