Fetch The New Yorker top stories from its public RSS feed, returning titles, canonical URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, lead images, and department labels.
Get The New Yorker top stories. Returns fresh The New Yorker top stories from its public RSS feed: title, canonical URL, summary, author, publication time, lead image, and the department label (for example "News / The Lede").
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data comes from a public RSS feed and enumerates the output fields, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, result counts, or freshness guarantees. For a simple read-only fetch this is adequate, but not rich.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then lists return fields. The department label example is useful, and there is no filler.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields: title, URL, summary, author, publication time, lead image, and department. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.
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 already reflects this completely, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about inputs, which is appropriate since there are none.
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 action and resource: it fetches The New Yorker top stories and lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as newyorker_headlines or newyorker_sections, 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 usage is implied: call it when you want current New Yorker top stories. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the choice among several related New Yorker tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.