Fetch the newest public CTV News stories across national and local desks from its sitemap (roughly 24 hours of items); videos and galleries are excluded. Use ctvnews_headlines with a section for one newsroom's list.
| 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, and the description adds real context beyond them: the sitemap origin, the ~24-hour recency window, and that videos and galleries are excluded from results. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but for a read-only feed the added behavioral detail is solid.
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 with zero filler. The scope and exclusions come first, the alternative-routing sentence second, which is the right front-loading for a selection decision.
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 values need no explanation. The description covers what it returns, how fresh it is, what's excluded, and which sibling to use instead — everything an agent needs 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to enrich, and it correctly avoids inventing any filtering options that don't exist.
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 (newest public CTV News stories), plus scope: across national and local desks, sourced from the sitemap, roughly 24 hours of items. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ctvnews_headlines, so an agent can route without opening either 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?
Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use ctvnews_headlines with a section for one newsroom's list.' This directly contrasts the broad cross-desk feed here with the single-section feed elsewhere, 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.
