Search Fox News public articles, videos, and slideshows by query, then filter results by content type for targeted research or monitoring.
Search Fox News public content. Searches Fox News. Results may include article, video, or slideshow records; use type to restrict the result kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| type | No | Result type | |
| start | No | 1-based result offset |
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 full burden, but it does disclose that results can be heterogeneous (article, video, or slideshow records), which is useful behavioral context. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, so it is only partially complete.
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 short sentences, but one ("Searches Fox News") is pure redundancy of the first, so the text is not fully economical. The useful content (result types and the type filter) is present but not front-loaded optimally.
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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and result kinds adequately, but omits return shape, result counts, and pagination expectations beyond what the start param implies. Minimum viable rather than complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: it explains that without a type filter results mix article/video/slideshow records, and that "type" narrows the result kind. This clarifies the default result composition the schema alone does not convey.
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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Search Fox News public content"), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like foxnews_news, foxnews_headlines, or foxnews_article, and the second sentence ("Searches Fox News") simply restates the first.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this search tool over foxnews_news, foxnews_headlines, or foxnews_article, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word "Search."
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.