get_ai_newsRead published AI Builders Brief items by topic or UTC digest date. Returns source links and GreenGo summaries only.
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_ai_news"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| topic | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by scoping the payload to 'source links and GreenGo summaries only', but says nothing about the 20-item cap, ordering, or pagination.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the retrieval axes are front-loaded ahead of the return-format note. Nothing wastes space, though the second sentence is terse to the point of being clipped.
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?
With no output schema the description does well to sketch the return ('source links and GreenGo summaries only'), and annotations cover safety. But for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and all-optional inputs, the missing limit semantics and default-behavior guidance leave real gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it clarifies 'topic' and interprets 'date' as the UTC digest date, which helps. However 'limit' is never mentioned and the enum values for topic are left entirely to the schema.
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?
States a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('published AI Builders Brief items'), plus the two filter axes (topic, UTC digest date). It is easily distinguishable from the listing-oriented siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
'By topic or UTC digest date' implies the two retrieval modes, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_listing/search_listings, no exclusions, and no note on what happens if neither filter is supplied (all params optional).
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.