Fetch AP News top-story cards from the public AP Top News hub. For a named section such as business or world news, use apnews_headlines with its section slug; use apnews_article for one discovered article.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and open-world nature are covered. The description adds that the hub is 'public' and that it returns 'top-story cards,' which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or the shape of the cards; with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by routing alternatives. Zero waste; every clause 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?
Given no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations that cover safety, the description is complete: it states the scope ('top-story cards'), the source ('public AP Top News hub'), and routes to siblings. Nothing critical 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?
There are zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage (empty object). Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description appropriately says nothing about params, which is correct for a no-argument tool.
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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('AP News top-story cards from the public AP Top News hub'), and explicitly differentiates from siblings apnews_headlines (for named sections) and apnews_article (for one discovered article). An agent can tell this apart from apnews_headlines without opening the schemas.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use (top-story cards) and when-to-use-alternatives (apnews_headlines with section slug for business/world; apnews_article for one article). Nothing is left to 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.
