Latest breaking/developing stories — combines trending searches + top headlines.
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": "breaking_now"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country code (default: us) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the combination behavior ('combines trending searches + top headlines') but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as real-time updates, country filtering effects, or output format limitations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and method. The em-dash separates the core value from the combination mechanism, making it front-loaded and concise with no wasted words.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core function but omits details like number of results, sort order, or any disclaimers. It is minimally adequate but would benefit from a bit more context about what the returned stories look like or how they are updated.
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 100% (the only parameter 'country' is described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter; the schema already explains 'Country code (default: us)'. No extra meaning is provided beyond what the schema contains.
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 states 'Latest breaking/developing stories — combines trending searches + top headlines,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like top_news and trending_topics by indicating it combines them. It lacks an explicit verb but the noun phrase conveys the purpose effectively.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage for breaking/developing stories but doesn't state when not to use related tools like top_news or trending_topics. The implied use case is sufficient to merit a mid-range score.
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.