Fetch fresh Harvard Business Review headlines from its public site-wide content stream.
Get Harvard Business Review latest headlines. Returns fresh entries from Harvard Business Review's public, site-wide "The Latest" content stream.
| 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 discloses that the data is 'public' and 'site-wide', and that it returns 'fresh entries', which adds some context. However, it does not describe return format, ordering, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a zero-annotation tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a clarifying detail about the content stream. 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 simple zero-parameter headlines tool, the description is adequate but not rich. It states the source and nature of the content, but does not specify what fields the output will contain (e.g., titles, links, dates) or any limits. Given the lack of an output schema, the description could reasonably be expected to clarify the return structure, but it remains usable for an agent that just needs headlines.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter details to add. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain; the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Harvard Business Review latest headlines', and specifies it returns the site-wide 'The Latest' content stream. It distinguishes this from article or category tools by naming the stream, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling headlines tools. Purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent to know what it does.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hbr_article, hbr_categories, or other headlines tools. The description does not mention when this is the appropriate choice (e.g., for a site-wide feed) nor when to prefer a more specific tool. The context is implied but not explicit, so an agent gets no help in selecting this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.