Retrieve current Washington Post stories from its public news sitemap, including titles, canonical URLs, publication times, and last-modified timestamps.
Get the latest Washington Post stories. Returns The Washington Post's current public news-sitemap feed with titles, canonical URLs, publication times, and last-modified times.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a feed with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any limits, pagination, or ordering behavior. Given the lack of annotations, more behavioral detail would be expected for a complete disclosure.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Get the latest Washington Post stories'), followed by a brief specification of the return content. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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 feed tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the data fields returned, which is critical for an agent. However, it does not mention potential limits (e.g., number of items), ordering, or pagination, which could be relevant but are not strictly necessary for a basic feed retrieval. Given the simplicity, it is adequate.
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. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details, though it does not add any parameter-related semantics beyond the schema.
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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('the latest Washington Post stories'), and the output (a news-sitemap feed with titles, canonical URLs, publication times, and last-modified times). It is distinct from sibling tools like wapo_article or wapo_headlines because it explicitly refers to a feed of current stories, not a specific article or headline 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 retrieving a current feed of stories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wapo_headlines or wapo_sections. There is no mention of when not to use it or any selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.