News & Media MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the returned fields (title, summary, URL, timestamp, byline) and the 24-hour recency constraint. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint and openWorldHint).

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, return fields, and usage guidance without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, return data, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 single parameter max_results is fully described in the input schema (default 10, max 100 for pagination). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 breaking news from AP News with a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_bbc_news, the mention of 'global news agency' provides some distinction.

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 advises use for current events coverage, news monitoring, or newsfeeds, and specifies best for recent stories within 24 hours. It does not state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and contextually appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; description adds what fields are returned and that results are latest stories covering global/regional/domestic, without contradicting 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and usage, front-loading key information; slight lack of structure but no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, description lists returned fields and categories, covering purpose, usage, and behavior adequately for a simple read-only tool.

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 covers the only parameter (max_results) with default and behavior note; description adds no further parameter detail beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves latest BBC news stories with specific fields (headline, synopsis, etc.) and categories, distinguishing it from other news source tools.

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?

Explicitly advises using for UK perspective on international news or UK-focused stories, and mentions categories for targeted browsing, though does not specify when not to use or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it returns stories ranked by community engagement and lists specific return fields (title, URL, discussion link, upvotes, comments, submitter), which is useful 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key details. Every sentence adds value: it specifies the source, what is returned, and use cases.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return fields. With readOnlyHint, no destructive warnings are needed. The description covers purpose, usage, and outputs comprehensively for a read-only tool.

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 100% for the single parameter 'max_results', and the schema description already explains its purpose and default. The tool description does not add new information about parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 pulls top trending stories from Hacker News, lists returned fields (title, URL, discussion link, upvotes, comments, submitter), and provides use cases (tech news, startup stories, developer content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other news sources.

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 for tech news, startup stories, and developer-relevant content,' guiding when to use it. While it does not list when not to use, the sibling tools (e.g., get_bbc_news) imply alternatives for other domains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so description adds value by detailing return fields and curation focus, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits are disclosed.

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 efficient sentences: first defines purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. No redundant wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and usage context. Minor gap: does not specify any consequence of max_results value.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description; the tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Maximum number of stories to return (default 10, recommended for fresh content)'.

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?

Clear verb 'Access' with specific resource NPR, detailed return fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools by stating focus on US news, science, culture, and journalistic depth.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for journalistic depth and alternative perspectives on major news events', providing context for when to choose this tool over alternatives, but lacks explicit when-not or comparative exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds specific return fields (headline, source, URL, date, relevance score) and sorting behavior ('sorted by recency'), providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 three concise sentences, front-loading the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the tool's function, input parameters (implicitly), and output structure. Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete, though it could mention pagination or rate limits for thoroughness.

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%—both parameters have examples and defaults. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it generally restates the purpose of the query parameter without new detail.

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 states 'Query Google News for articles matching specific keywords or topics across global news sources,' which includes a specific verb (query), resource (Google News), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that target specific news sources like get_ap_news.

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 advises 'Use for targeted research on specific topics, people, or events' and notes sorting by recency. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply specific sources.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.