Fetch current top stories from WIRED, including title, URL, summary, author, publication time, lead image, and item type—no parameters required.
Get the latest WIRED stories. Returns WIRED's current top stories with no parameters. Each item has its title, canonical URL, summary, author, publication time and lead image, plus a type label for the item.
| 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 burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it is parameterless, returns the 'current/latest' top stories, and enumerates the return fields (title, URL, summary, author, publication time, lead image, type label). It omits pagination, rate limits, and whether the result set is capped, but the freshness and shape disclosure is well above baseline.
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 purpose then scope then return shape. Every sentence carries information with no filler.
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-param, no-output-schema read tool, describing the returned item fields is exactly the right compensation. The main gap is that no sibling differentiation is offered against wired_headlines, but the tool can otherwise be invoked correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the explicit 'with no parameters' correctly reinforces that no filtering inputs are accepted.
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 and resource ('Get the latest WIRED stories') and scopes it to 'current top stories'. Clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling wired_headlines, which a caller would reasonably expect to overlap.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related wired_headlines / wired_article siblings. The agent must guess which WIRED entry point to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.