Fetch current ProPublica top stories with titles, URLs, summaries, publication times, images, and author bylines. No parameters required.
Get ProPublica top stories. Returns the latest ProPublica top stories across topics. Takes no parameters. Each item has its title, URL, summary, publication time and image, plus the author byline, which can name more than one reporter.
| 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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does add useful return-shape detail (title, URL, summary, publication time, image, multi-author byline). It still omits behavioral traits like how many stories are returned, freshness/update cadence, and any rate or auth considerations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. The second sentence slightly restates the first ('latest ProPublica top stories'), a minor redundancy, but overall the structure 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 simple zero-parameter feed with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and the item fields. The only real gap is lack of differentiation from sibling ProPublica feeds, which matters given how many exist.
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 takes zero parameters and the description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters', which is the appropriate baseline for a no-arg tool. There is nothing further to document on the parameter side.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ProPublica top stories') and clarifies it spans all topics. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like propublica_headlines or propublica_article, so an agent cannot tell which ProPublica feed to choose from the description alone.
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 notes 'Takes no parameters' but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names or contrasts an alternative such as propublica_headlines or propublica_sections. The agent is left to infer when this feed is preferred over the other ProPublica endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.