Fetch philippine Daily Inquirer public editorial or RSS sections accepted by inquirer_headlines. Use inquirer_headlines with a returned slug for section stories. Use inquirer_news for the general feed.
| 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 safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the useful chaining fact that the returned slugs feed inquirer_headlines, but says nothing about result freshness, RSS-vs-editorial distinction behavior, or rate limits, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.
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 primary action comes first and the routing guidance follows. Every clause carries actionable information.
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 documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the tool's role in the workflow chain. It is essentially complete for a no-param listing tool, with only the editorial-vs-RSS distinction left slightly underspecified.
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 schema imposes no documentation burden. The description correctly conveys that the caller supplies no input and instead reuses a returned slug downstream, which is adequate for a no-arg tool.
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 (section listings for the Philippine Daily Inquirer) and notes the returned slugs are consumable by inquirer_headlines. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, though the phrase 'sections accepted by inquirer_headlines' is slightly awkward in describing what the output actually represents.
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 routes the agent: 'Use inquirer_headlines with a returned slug for section stories' and 'Use inquirer_news for the general feed.' It names both the follow-up tool and the alternative feed tool, so the when-to-use decision is fully specified.
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.
