Get NJ.com's current top stories from its anonymous Arc RSS feed, including each story's title, canonical URL, short feed summary, publication time, author, and image when available.
| 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 usefully adds what the feed is (an anonymous Arc RSS feed) and what each story carries (title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author, image when available), which tells the agent the freshness and payload character of the result.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields. No filler and nothing buried.
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 zero-parameter, read-only RSS-backed tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and content adequately. Enumerating the story fields is slightly redundant against the output schema, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics for the description to clarify or omit.
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 (Get), a specific resource (NJ.com's current top stories), and names the data source (its anonymous Arc RSS feed). The resource is named precisely enough that no sibling in this large family could be confused with it.
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?
Usage is implied by 'current top stories' – an agent can infer this is the tool for NJ.com's latest headlines – but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no guidance on when a different news/section tool would be preferable.
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.
