Fetch Chicago Tribune top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use chicagotribune_headlines with a supported section slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source ('public feed') and the shape of the payload ('headline items from the general top-story stream'), which is useful but modest; it says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or ordering.
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 sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be enumerated, and the description still characterizes them as headline items. For a zero-param, read-only feed tool this is nearly complete; only mild gaps like ordering/freshness remain.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to add and the description correctly avoids inventing any. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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 specific verb (Fetch) and resource (Chicago Tribune top stories) with scope (public feed, general top-story stream), and explicitly contrasts with the section-specific sibling chicagotribune_headlines. An agent can distinguish it from chicagotribune_article/headlines/sections without opening a schema.
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?
Names the alternative (chicagotribune_headlines) and the exact condition selecting it ('For a section-specific list'), plus the qualifier 'with a supported section slug'. This is explicit when/when-not routing rather than inference.
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.
