Free sample of the English China news feed (no Apify token needed).
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_sample"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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 behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the auth profile ('no Apify token needed'), but omits return format, sample size, rate limits, or whether results are static/cached — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key value proposition (free, no token) is placed at the end as a clear qualifier. It is perhaps over-sparse for the tool's behavior, but nothing is redundant.
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 sample endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves the sample's size and contents unspecified. An agent can invoke it correctly, but would not know what to expect in return.
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 0%, but there is only one optional parameter whose bounds (min 1, max 3, default 3) are already self-documenting in the schema. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so this sits at the adequate baseline rather than compensating for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific resource ('English China news feed') and states the deliverable ('free sample'), so the agent knows it returns feed items. The parenthetical 'no Apify token needed' implicitly contrasts with get_china_news, but the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated directly.
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 is only implied: an agent can reason that this is the no-credential fallback to get_china_news when a token is unavailable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_china_news, nor any note on limits of the sample (e.g., capped at 3 items).
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.