SiteCheck Web Intel

Financial Times headlines from the public FT RSS feeds

search_ft_com_articles

Read-only

Financial Times headlines from the public FT RSS feeds: international homepage or any section/topic stream (world, markets, companies, technology, opinion, global-economy, us, uk, climate-capital...). Keyword filter on title/summary. Headlines and standfirsts only; full articles are paywalled and not returned. Public feed, no key. Related tools on this server, for a different need: search_nyt_articles when you need New York Times home page headlines from the public NYT RSS; search_wsj_articles when you need WSJ World News headlines from the public Dow Jones RSS feed. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

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": "search_ft_com_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Words that must all appear in the title or summary (optional, max 200 characters)
`limit`	No	How many items, 1 to 30 (default 10)
`section`	No	FT section or topic slug from the ft.com address, e.g. world, markets, companies, technology, opinion, global-economy, us, uk, climate-capital (default home = international homepage)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`source`	No
`section`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: only headlines and standfirsts are returned because full articles are paywalled, no API key is needed, and each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 while failed calls are free. That paywall and billing detail is exactly the kind of behavioral trait annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing pagination or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and scope, then moves to coverage limits, sibling routing, and pricing, so every part is functional. The sibling-routing sentence is somewhat verbose with repeated 'when you need ... from the public ... RSS' phrasing, which costs it a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only search tool with only three optional parameters and an output schema already defined, this description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (headlines and standfirsts only), what it does not return (paywalled full articles), cost model, and when to pick a sibling instead.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a little framing by calling q a keyword filter over title/summary and repeating section slug examples, but these largely duplicate the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource — retrieving Financial Times headlines from the public FT RSS feeds — and enumerates the scope (international homepage or section/topic streams like world, markets, technology). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling NYT and WSJ feed tools, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when to use it and names the exact alternatives for adjacent needs: search_nyt_articles for New York Times home page headlines and search_wsj_articles for WSJ World News. The keyword filter and section stream options are also framed as selection criteria.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?