List all 19 Foreign Affairs topic feeds, including slug, display name, and RSS feed_url, to discover available topics for the topic endpoint.
List Foreign Affairs topic feeds. Lists the 19 Foreign Affairs topics accepted by the topic endpoint, such as economics, nato, sanctions and us-foreign-policy. Each topic has its slug, display name and RSS feed_url. It takes no parameters.
| 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, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the fixed cardinality (19 topics), the exact fields returned (slug, display name, feed_url), and that no parameters are taken. It does not mention ordering or whether the list is stable, which keeps it from a 5.
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 the action, then concrete examples, then the return shape. No filler and every sentence adds information.
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, no-output-schema, no-annotation listing tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, how many, the fields, and that no input is required.
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, and the description explicitly confirms 'It takes no parameters', so there is no ambiguity for the agent. Baseline for a 0-param tool is 4; the explicit statement is a small plus but nothing further to explain.
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 (List) and resource (Foreign Affairs topic feeds), and clarifies the output is the 19 topic slugs/names/feed URLs accepted by the topic endpoint. It distinguishes what the resource is, but stops short of explicitly naming the sibling `foreignaffairs_topic` as the consumer of these slugs.
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 phrase 'topics accepted by the topic endpoint' implies this is a discovery/listing step feeding another tool, but it never states when to use this versus `foreignaffairs_topic` or any alternative. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.