Fetch New York Magazine top stories from the public homepage and return fresh article listings as structured JSON for news monitoring.
Get New York Magazine top stories. Returns fresh New York Magazine stories from the public homepage.
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns fresh stories', implying a read operation but without explicit statements about side effects, rate limits, or pagination. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool, though it could arguably be a touch more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned stories look like (e.g., list of titles, URLs, timestamps). It only says 'stories' without specifying structure or fields, leaving the agent to guess the return format. This is a significant gap for a news 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 the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond that because there are none to describe.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'New York Magazine top stories', which is clear. It also specifies the source as 'the public homepage', giving some specificity. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool nymag_headlines, which likely serves a similar purpose, so it loses a point.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nymag_headlines, nymag_article, or nymag_sections. The description is purely definitional and offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.