get_articlesFetch the latest spaceflight news articles sorted by publication date. Returns title, summary, URL, image, and source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of articles to return (default 10, max 100) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total number of articles available | |
| articles | Yes | ||
| returned | Yes | Number of articles returned in this response |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds useful behavioral context: sorting order (publication date) and the specific fields returned (title, summary, URL, image, source), which goes beyond schema details.
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 concise, front-loaded with the action, and uses only two sentences that convey the purpose and return value without redundancy.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, clear output schema, and strong annotations), the description is complete enough. It conveys the core behavior and return details, with no missing critical information for a basic fetch operation.
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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully described. The description does not add additional detail 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 the tool fetches the latest spaceflight news articles with a specific sorting (by publication date). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_articles or get_blogs.
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 implies use when you want the latest articles but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. No guidance is given for choosing between this and search-related siblings.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. While each has distinct nuances, they could be confused by an agent.
Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is inconsistent (e.g., bet_research vs. polymarket_arbitrage vs. ai_visibility_check). There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.
34 tools is high given the server's stated purpose ('spacenews'). Only a few tools directly relate to space news; the bulk are general-purpose Pipeworx utilities, making the scope too broad.
For a space news server, the tool surface is incomplete: only get_articles, get_blogs, and search_articles are relevant. Missing tools for article details, source filtering, or categories. The extensive general tools don't make up for this gap.