Fetch IndieWire top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use indiewire_headlines with a supported section slug. Use indiewire_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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that results come from the public feed and the general top-story stream, which is useful scoping context, but says nothing about item counts, refresh cadence, or pagination. Some added value, but not rich behavioral detail beyond annotations.
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 tight clauses, each earning its place: what it returns, the section-list alternative, and the single-article alternative. Core purpose is front-loaded with no filler.
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-value details need not be described. For a zero-param feed tool the definition covers purpose and routing adequately; only very minor gaps remain (volume/freshness of the feed).
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The routing notes are the relevant guidance here.
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) plus resource (IndieWire top stories) and scope (public feed, general top-story stream). It explicitly distinguishes itself from indiewire_headlines and indiewire_article, so the agent can route correctly 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?
Names both alternatives and the conditions that select them: indiewire_headlines for section-specific lists with a slug, indiewire_article for one story's body. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.
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.
