[News & Media] Get the latest headlines from AP News (Associated Press). Returns article titles, summaries, URLs, and publication dates.
Args: max_results: Maximum number of articles to return (default 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_results | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (variable results). The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return format (titles, summaries, URLs, dates), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but for a simple read tool with safe hints, this is adequate.
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 extremely concise: one category tag, two clear sentences, and a one-line parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and immediately scannable.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, safe read), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the parameter meaning. OpenWorldHint accounts for result variability. However, it lacks details like pagination or batch size limits, but these are not critical for basic functionality.
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 only parameter, max_results, is explained in the description as 'Maximum number of articles to return (default 10)'. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding meaning to the parameter. A higher score would require more nuance (e.g., allowed range), but it is sufficient.
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 it gets the latest headlines from AP News, specifying the resource (AP News/Associated Press) and the verb 'get'. It also lists the return fields (titles, summaries, URLs, dates). This is distinct from sibling news tools like news__get_bbc_news or news__search_google_news, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 identifies the source as AP News, which guides the user to use this tool when AP News headlines are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling list offers other news sources. The implication is clear but could be more explicit.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality across categories (e.g., multiple search_arxiv, search_google_scholar, real estate tools, DNS/WHOIS checks). An agent would struggle to differentiate between similar tools from different categories, leading to ambiguity.
Tools follow a 'category__verb_noun' pattern mostly, but verbs vary (get, search, screen, check, etc.) and some categories use different orders (e.g., 'get_repo_stats' vs 'search_repos'). The consistency is acceptable but not uniform across the entire set.
With 152 tools, the server is excessively large for a single MCP server. While it aims to be an all-in-one gateway, the sheer number overwhelms the agent and likely exceeds practical limits for coherent selection.
The server covers a wide range of domains (finance, real estate, news, developer tools, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., social media APIs, CRM tools). Coverage is broad but not exhaustive, and some niche areas (e.g., global stock exchanges) are over-represented.