Fetch MIT Sloan Management Review headlines and article cards from the public homepage feed for content aggregation and analysis.
Get MIT Sloan Management Review headlines. Returns article cards from MIT Sloan Management Review's public homepage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source ('public homepage feed') and the return shape ('article cards'), which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, result count, freshness, or whether any limits apply.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded. The repetition of the publication name is minor and does not hurt readability.
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 no-parameter read-only feed tool, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it leaves 'article cards' undefined. An agent knows what to call but not exactly what fields to expect in each card.
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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool; the description adds nothing needed.
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 ('MIT Sloan Management Review headlines') and adds that it returns article cards from the public homepage feed. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sloanreview_article or sloanreview_articles.
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 when to use it — when headline/article-card content from the MIT Sloan Review homepage is needed — but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. No explicit routing to sloanreview_article, sloanreview_articles, or sloanreview_topic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.