Fetch the current Financial Times news feed with story titles, canonical URLs, and publication times.
Get the latest Financial Times stories. Returns the Financial Times' current news feed: the newest stories across all sections, each with its title, canonical URL, and publication time.
| 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 present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (title, canonical URL, publication time) and that this is a read-only feed operation. However, it says nothing about how many stories are returned, ordering guarantees beyond 'newest,' pagination, or freshness/caching — useful context for a news feed that is left unstated.
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 with zero filler. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the second sentence efficiently expands on scope and return fields. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, the scope ('all sections'), and the per-item fields. The only notable gaps are result-count limits and any staleness/pagination behavior, which are minor for a simple feed retrieval tool.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no semantics for the description to clarify and no risk of misinvocation via arguments. The baseline of 4 applies since the empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest Financial Times stories') and adds scope detail ('newest stories across all sections' with title, canonical URL, publication time). It is clear and concrete, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-sibling ft_headlines, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ft_headlines, ft_article, or ft_search. There is no stated use case, exclusion, or comparison to siblings, so the agent must infer when this feed tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.