Fetch CNA top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use cna_headlines with a supported section slug. Use cna_article with a returned article URL when you need one story's body.
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network-profile burden is largely covered. The description adds the scoping detail (public feed, general top-story stream) but says nothing about freshness or caching, and with an output schema present return format is not its responsibility. A 3 is appropriate: some added value beyond the annotations, no contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, sibling for sections, sibling for article body. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first clause.
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 feed tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description supplies exactly the missing piece, the routing among the cna_* family, and omits nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description is fully consistent with that in declaring no filtering for user/workspace or section, and it clearly signals the tool takes no arguments.
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 CNA top stories from the public feed') and scopes it precisely ('general top-story stream'), which distinguishes it from the sibling cna_headlines that covers section-specific lists. An agent can route between cna_news, cna_headlines, and cna_article 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?
Explicitly names the two alternatives (cna_headlines for a section-specific list, cna_article for a single story body) and the condition that selects each. 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.
