Fetch a Foreign Policy curated project hub and its current article cards for a specified project slug to track live coverage.
Get a Foreign Policy project hub. Returns a public Foreign Policy curated project hub and its current article cards. Use foreignpolicy-projects to discover live project slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Foreign Policy project slug |
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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns a public curated hub and current article cards, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what happens with an invalid/expired slug, whether the hub is live-updated, or any rate limits. It's a read operation by nature, but that's inferred rather than stated.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The core action and return value are front-loaded, and the routing hint is appended efficiently.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The gap is that it doesn't describe the shape of the returned article cards or what fields are included, and it doesn't state error behavior for invalid slugs. Still, an agent can likely call it correctly with the given info.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'project' is described as 'Foreign Policy project slug'. The description adds that the slug should be a live project slug discoverable via foreignpolicy-projects, which is helpful but not a major semantic addition beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Foreign Policy project hub'), and clarifies it returns the hub and its current article cards. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like foreignpolicy_projects or foreignpolicy_article, but the resource and return content are clear enough.
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 says to use foreignpolicy-projects to discover live project slugs, which is a clear pointer for a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool versus foreignpolicy_article or foreignpolicy_headlines, but the context of needing a project slug is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.