Retrieve current Daily Wire top stories with title, URL, summary, publication time, author, and image; takes no parameters.
Get Daily Wire top stories. Returns the current Daily Wire top stories. Each item has its title, URL, summary, publication time, author and image. Takes no parameters; use dailywire-headlines to filter by content vertical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (title, URL, summary, publication time, author, image) as well as the zero-parameter, unfiltered nature of the call. It says nothing about ordering, freshness/refresh cadence, or result count limits, which would round out a read-only listing tool.
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 sentences, and the first two are redundant: 'Get Daily Wire top stories. Returns the current Daily Wire top stories.' restate the same fact and one of them could be dropped. The useful routing and return-field information is present but is packed into the tail rather than front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields each item returns, which is genuinely useful. What is missing is minor: ordering/dedup semantics of 'top stories' and any indication of how many items come back.
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 has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly asserts 'Takes no parameters,' matching the empty schema rather than leaving the agent to infer it.
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?
The description names a specific verb+resource ('Get Daily Wire top stories') and clarifies what the tool is not, pointing the agent at a sibling for filtered content. It falls short of a 5 because the recommended sibling ('dailywire-headlines' for filtering by content vertical) is a debatable routing choice when dailywire_sections also exists in the toolset.
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?
It states an explicit when-to-use-elsewhere condition ('use dailywire-headlines to filter by content vertical') and notes that the tool takes no parameters, so the agent knows not to reach for it when filtering is needed. There is no explicit when-not or prerequisites beyond that single alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.