get_joke_flagsList all content filter flags (e.g., explicit, political, racist). Use to understand what filters exclude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flags | Yes | Available content filter flags |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "flags": {
+ "description": "Available content filter flags",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "flags"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the tool's safety profile. The description adds context about the flag content but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond the listing action. This is adequate for a simple enumeration tool.
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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The action and examples are front-loaded, making it immediately parseable.
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 trivial tool with zero parameters, an output schema, and thorough annotations, the description fully covers the purpose and usage. No additional details are needed.
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?
With zero parameters, the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and there is no schema information to compensate for.
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 lists all content filter flags with concrete examples (explicit, political, racist). It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'content filter flags', distinguishing it from the sibling get_joke_categories.
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 explicitly says 'Use to understand what filters exclude', providing clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is well stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The server contains 4 joke-related tools and 31 tools from the Pipeworx data ecosystem, which are entirely unrelated. An agent cannot easily distinguish whether to use a joke tool or a data tool, causing extreme ambiguity.
Tool names within the joke subset (e.g., get_joke, search_jokes) and Pipeworx subset (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) are individually consistent, but the overall set has no unified naming pattern or domain signal, making the server's purpose unclear.
With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a jokes-themed server. Only 4 tools are joke-related; the remaining 31 belong to a completely different domain, making the tool count highly inappropriate.
The joke coverage (get, search, categories, flags) is minimal but functional. However, the server as a whole is a Frankenstein of unrelated domains, lacking a coherent surface. The overwhelming majority of tools are irrelevant to the server name.