Fetch the roughly 10 newest public Collider feed stories with article URLs, summaries, authors, and publication times. Use collider_headlines for section headlines, or collider_article to retrieve one article's text.
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the approximate result count (~10) and that these are the 'newest public' feed stories. It doesn't cover freshness window or ordering guarantees, so not a full 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 tight sentences, zero waste. The primary purpose and result count are front-loaded, with the disambiguation trailing as a subordinate 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 no-parameter, read-only feed tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It says what it returns and where to go for the adjacent operations; nothing needed to call it correctly 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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The listed fields (URLs, summaries, authors, publication times) describe output, not inputs.
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) and resource (Collider feed stories) plus scope: ~10 newest public stories. It also distinguishes itself from collider_headlines and collider_article by naming them as alternatives, so an agent can select without opening 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?
Explicit routing: 'Use collider_headlines for section headlines, or collider_article to retrieve one article's text.' This gives when-not and the alternatives directly, leaving nothing 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.
