Fetch Boston Globe top stories, returning recent article metadata and summaries. Article bodies, section headlines, and author profiles are not included.
Get Boston Globe top stories. Returns recent Boston Globe story metadata and summaries. Article bodies, sections, headlines-by-section, and author profiles are not exposed, and some stories require a subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the return is metadata plus summaries rather than full text, and some stories sit behind a subscription paywall. It stops short of describing pagination, item counts, or refresh cadence, which would be the remaining gaps.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the exclusions and the paywall caveat. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a parameterless read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what comes back and the key limitation (paywalled stories). Only pagination/volume behavior is left unspecified, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, no-input call.
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 and resource ("Get Boston Globe top stories") and clarifies the returned payload is story metadata and summaries. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the source scope is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from generic news tools like google_news.
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?
Usage is implied (fetch the Boston Globe's current top stories) and the description usefully enumerates what is NOT available (article bodies, sections, headlines-by-section, author profiles), steering the agent away from wrong expectations. However, it never states when to prefer this over the many other news tools in the sibling set, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.