Fetch recently posted independent film, TV, and awards articles from RSS feeds so you can monitor outlet coverage without manually checking websites.
Get IndieWire top stories. Returns fresh IndieWire independent film, TV and awards top stories from its public RSS feed.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions it returns 'fresh' top stories from a public RSS feed, but does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, whether it returns a list of summaries or full articles, or any caching behavior. It does not specify what happens if the feed is temporarily unavailable or if there is a delay in freshness.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action 'Get IndieWire top stories.' It immediately conveys the resource and scope. The additional details about independent film, TV, awards, and RSS feed add useful context without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and what domain it covers. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., list of articles with titles and links), pagination, or any freshness guarantees. An agent might wonder if it returns only headlines or full summaries, but the context is largely sufficient for a simple retrieval.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, and the description clearly indicates that it returns top stories without any input needed. Schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and the description confirms the no-parameter nature by focusing on retrieval. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add more.
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 that this tool gets IndieWire top stories and specifies the domains (independent film, TV, awards) and source (public RSS feed). It is distinct from the sibling tools which are mostly for specific articles, authors, or sections, so an agent can identify this as the top-stories aggregator for IndieWire.
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 implies that this tool is for top stories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over the sibling tools like indiewire_article, indiewire_author, indiewire_headlines, or indiewire_sections. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool instead of the others, but the scope 'top stories' suggests it's for a curated feed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.