Retrieve recent Reuters articles with titles, canonical URLs, update times, and lead images. Browse up to 10,000 articles via paginated pages of 100.
Get recent Reuters articles. Returns a page of recent Reuters articles: title, canonical URL, update time, and the lead image URL when available. The index covers the most recent 10,000 articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Results page, 100 items per page |
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. It discloses the returned fields, the optional pagination via schema, and the 10,000-article coverage limit. It does not mention rate limits or potential quirks, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient to convey behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core action 'Get recent Reuters articles,' followed by concise details on return fields and coverage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the simple schema (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the return format and the index limit. An agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical details.
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 sole parameter 'page' is fully documented in the schema with 'Results page, 100 items per page' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get recent Reuters articles.' It specifies the resource (Reuters articles) and the exact returned fields (title, canonical URL, update time, lead image). It is not a tautology and is distinct from singular article tools like reuters_article by its plural form and return of a list.
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 usage for browsing recent articles but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as reuters_news or reuters_sections, which may also return lists. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.