Retrieve current Fast Company top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, authors, and images—no parameters needed for quick news monitoring.
Get Fast Company top stories. Returns the current Fast Company top stories. Each item has its title, canonical URL, summary, publication time, author and image. Takes no parameters, so there is no section or paging control.
| 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. It does disclose behavior beyond structure by listing the returned fields (title, URL, summary, publication time, author, image) and the constraint that there is no section or paging control. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or result count, leaving moderate 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?
Front-loaded with the core action and appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool. Slightly redundant ('Get Fast Company top stories. Returns the current Fast Company top stories.'), but the rest of the content earns its place by documenting the response shape.
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 does the right thing by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent can rely on it without additional structured data. It is nearly complete for a simple fetch; only result-count and freshness cadence are unstated.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Takes no parameters, so there is no section or paging control,' which usefully pre-empts an agent from looking for filtering options.
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+resource ('Get Fast Company top stories') and even clarifies the scope as 'current' top stories, so the agent knows it is a live front-page feed rather than an archive. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings fastcompany_headlines or fastcompany_sections, which is the main gap.
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?
The description implies usage context by noting there are no section or paging controls, which tells the agent this is a fixed, all-in-one feed. But it names no alternative (e.g., fastcompany_headlines, fastcompany_sections) and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not signal, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.