App News
app_newsApp news feed.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| maxlength | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appnews | No |
app_newsApp news feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appid | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| maxlength | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appnews | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "appid": 730
+ },
+ {
+ "appid": 570,
+ "count": 5,
+ "maxlength": 300
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "appnews": {
+ "properties": {
+ "appid": {
+ "description": "App ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "description": "News item count",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "newsitems": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "appid": {
+ "description": "App ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "author": {
+ "description": "News author",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "contents": {
+ "description": "News content",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "date": {
+ "description": "Unix timestamp",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "feed_type": {
+ "description": "Feed type",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "feedlabel": {
+ "description": "Feed label",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "feedname": {
+ "description": "Feed name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "gid": {
+ "description": "News item ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "is_external_url": {
+ "description": "Is external link",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "News title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "News URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. While annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) indicate a safe read operation, the description does not disclose what the news feed contains, how results are paginated, or any other operational 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a single noun phrase that provides minimal information, similar to a low-quality label rather than a useful tool description.
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 tool is incomplete given its parameters and sibling context. There is no explanation of what 'news' refers to, how appid is used, or what the output represents. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. The schema lists appid, count, and maxlength without any descriptions, and the description offers no hints about their meaning or usage.
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 'App news feed' essentially restates the tool name and title without using a specific verb like 'get' or 'list'. It gives a vague sense that the tool returns news items for an app, but does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools such as app_details or app_list.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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.