Fetch fresh Business Standard top-story cards from the public homepage feed; some links may be subscriber-only. Use businessstandard_headlines with a supported section slug for one section, then businessstandard_article for article content when accessible.
| 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 meaningful context beyond them: results are a live homepage feed and some links may be subscriber-only, warning the agent that fetched content may be gated. It does not describe pagination or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.
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 what the tool returns, followed by the escalation path. No filler or repetition of structured fields.
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 structure need not be explained, annotations carry the safety profile, and there are no parameters. The description covers what remains: source, freshness, the subscriber-only caveat, and how to reach the sibling tools.
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. The description correctly documents that there is nothing to configure and instead routes the agent to parameterized siblings for scoped queries.
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 and resource (fetch fresh Business Standard top-story cards from the public homepage feed) and explicitly frames its relationship to siblings businessstandard_headlines and businessstandard_article. An agent can distinguish this homepage-feed tool from the section and article tools without inspecting 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?
Gives explicit routing: use this for the overall feed, businessstandard_headlines with a section slug for a single section, and businessstandard_article for article content. The when-to-use decision is fully spelled out with no inference required.
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.
