Get the latest human culture news from Finally Offline. Covers sports, music, fashion, and general culture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of articles to return (1-20) | |
| since | No | Time window for articles | 24h |
| category | No | Filter by category. Use 'all' for everything. | all |
| agent_token | No | Credential from register_agent. Alternative to Authorization: Bearer. Never put it in URLs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_tokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Credential from register_agent. Alternative to Authorization: Bearer. Never put it in URLs.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, sorting behavior, or return format. It only restates scope already visible in the parameter schema, providing minimal value beyond the annotations.
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 short sentences, with the core action and resource front-loaded. The second sentence listing categories is mildly redundant with the schema, but it is concise and not verbose. It earns its place by giving quick orientation.
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 simple, read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no required fields, the description is nearly sufficient. The annotations cover safety and the schema covers invocation details. The lack of output-schema information is not a major gap here, though explicit mention of what is returned (e.g., a list of article summaries) would improve 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. Every parameter (limit, since, category, agent_token) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of categories adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's enum values.
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 fetches 'the latest human culture news' from 'Finally Offline', naming a specific verb and resource. It lists covered categories (sports, music, fashion, culture), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_trending_topics and search_articles, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Usage context is implied: an agent would use this tool when it wants recent culture news. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., search_articles for targeted queries, get_trending_topics for trends) would be more appropriate. This is acceptable but leaves the choice to inference.
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.