Fetch fresh public Daily Express top-story headline cards from its feed or homepage. Use dailyexpress_headlines with a section for one topic area, or dailyexpress_article to retrieve one discovered story.
| 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 profile is covered. The description adds only 'fresh public' and the feed/homepage origin, which is useful but thin; it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or update cadence. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation guidance. 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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description covers what the tool does plus how to route to alternatives. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether this returns the full top-story set or a truncated feed, but nothing essential for calling a parameterless read 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 no parameter semantics to explain; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead directs the agent to sibling tools that do accept 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 ('Daily Express top-story headline cards') with the source noted (feed or homepage). It is distinguishable from dailyexpress_article and dailyexpress_headlines, though the boundary with dailyexpress_headlines is drawn mainly in the usage sentence rather than the purpose sentence itself.
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 two alternatives and the condition that selects each: dailyexpress_headlines for a section-scoped topic area, dailyexpress_article for one discovered story. No explicit 'when not to use' for this tool, but the contrast is clear enough for routing.
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.
