Fetch current Entertainment Weekly stories as JSON, including titles, URLs, and card images. No parameters needed; use ew-headlines for a single section.
Get Entertainment Weekly top stories. Returns the current Entertainment Weekly top stories. Each item has its title and URL, plus an image when the card shows one. Takes no parameters; use ew-headlines for a single section.
| 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably: it states the return is 'current' top stories and that each item contains a title, URL, and optionally an image, which describes the output contract. It omits item count, ordering, and freshness/caching behavior, but for a no-param read-only news endpoint these are minor.
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?
The first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Get ... top stories' / 'Returns the current ... top stories'), so one full sentence is wasted. The routing note and return-field detail are efficient, but the redundancy weakens front-loading.
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 no-param, read-only feed with no output schema, the description covers routing to the sibling, the absence of parameters, and the shape of returned items. It is mostly complete, missing only volume/ordering details an agent might want.
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. The description confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which is consistent with the empty schema but adds no meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Get Entertainment Weekly top stories") and names a sibling to route away from ("use `ew-headlines` for a single section"), so the agent can distinguish it from ew_headlines/ew_sections. However the second sentence ("Returns the current Entertainment Weekly top stories") restates the first verbatim, adding no differentiating information.
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 explicitly states there are no parameters and names an alternative ("use `ew-headlines` for a single section") with the condition that selects it. It stops short of a full when/when-not treatment, and the hyphenated `ew-headlines` does not match the underscore naming used by actual siblings (ew_headlines), which could confuse an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.