Everything The Neural Net harvested in the last day that it did not write up, grouped by source and linked to the original. Use for a broad view of current activity.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_wire"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context absent from structured fields: the one-day recency window and the grouped-by-source, link-preserving return shape. It stops short of stating permissions, rate limits, result caps, or pagination, which matters for a harvest-style feed 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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the substantive content description leads ahead of the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back, how it's grouped, and the time scope. It would be fully complete with a note on result volume or whether the window is adjustable, but nothing critical is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The implicit fixed 'last day' window is the only parameter-like constraint and it is stated.
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 unpacks the opaque name 'get_wire' into something concrete: items harvested in the last day that weren't written up, grouped by source, linked to originals. An agent can form a clear picture of the payload. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby 'search_news' sibling, though the 'not written up' framing implicitly separates it from editorial content.
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?
'Use for a broad view of current activity' gives one positive use case, so usage is implied rather than spelled out. There is no when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_news for targeted queries, which an agent would need to route correctly among five siblings.
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.