Fetch The National story cards from one public Arc category feed; provide an editorial slug returned by national_sections. A valid empty category returns no items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes |
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint); the description adds real value beyond them by naming the underlying source (a public Arc category feed) and disclosing that a valid empty category returns no items, so the agent won't treat an empty result as an error.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the input requirement and the empty-result caveat each earn their 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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the source, the parameter derivation and the empty-result behavior. Coverage is slightly incomplete only in that slug formatting examples are absent for a required, otherwise undescribed parameter.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: the single 'section' param is defined as an editorial slug obtained from national_sections. It doesn't specify slug casing/format or give examples, so it falls short of a 5.
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), a specific resource (The National story cards) and a specific scope (one public Arc category feed), which separates it from siblings like national_news, national_article and national_sections. The reference to national_sections for the slug input makes the boundary with that sibling explicit.
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?
Tells the agent to supply an editorial slug returned by national_sections, which is effectively a prerequisite/workflow instruction, and notes the empty-category edge case. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to prefer national_headlines over national_news or national_article.
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.
