Fetch NZ Herald top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use nzherald_headlines with a supported section slug. Use nzherald_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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context — public feed, general (unfiltered) top-story stream, returns headline items — but does not discuss auth needs, rate limits, or whether results are cached/ordered.
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 sentences, front-loaded with what it does, followed by the two routing alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.
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 not needed. For a zero-param, read-only feed tool the description covers purpose, scope, and both escape hatches to sibling tools — nothing an agent needs 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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; schema explicitly disallows additional properties, meaning there is genuinely nothing to document. The description's mention that no section filtering is possible reinforces this constraint.
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 (NZ Herald top stories) and pins the scope to the 'general top-story stream', distinguishing it from the section-specific nzherald_headlines sibling explicitly by name.
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 explicit routing: use nzherald_headlines for a section list, nzherald_article with a returned URL for a single story's body. Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are named, 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.
