Retrieve daily ethics feed editions starting from a specified date for a set number of days. Use it to fetch deterministic, date-based curriculum content for agent reflection.
Return a run of daily editions starting from a date, for N days. Each edition is a pure function of its date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| since | Yes | Start date YYYY-MM-DD. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does contribute one valuable trait: 'Each edition is a pure function of its date,' implying deterministic, side-effect-free, cacheable reads. It stops there, disclosing nothing about auth needs, error behavior for invalid/out-of-range dates, or what an edition actually contains.
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, front-loaded with the core behavior, with no filler. The second sentence ('pure function of its date') is terse and slightly cryptic but does carry real meaning, so little is wasted.
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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves notable gaps: it never says what an 'edition' contains, how many items come back, or how invalid dates or the 60-day cap are handled. The idempotency hint is useful but the definition is only minimally adequate for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 50% ('since' documented, 'days' undocumented). The description loosely maps both parameters via 'starting from a date' (since) and 'for N days' (days), compensating somewhat for the gap. However it adds no detail on date format (the schema supplies 'YYYY-MM-DD') or on the 1–60 bound enforced by 'days'.
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 ('Return a run of daily editions') plus scope ('starting from a date, for N days'), which clearly signals a range/batch operation. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so an agent must infer that this differs from get_daily_feed (single day) or list_feed_editions purely from the range phrasing.
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?
Usage is only implied by the 'run ... starting from a date, for N days' framing, which suggests a multi-day window use case. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the rich sibling set (get_daily_feed, get_feed_digest, get_feed_rotation), leaving the agent to guess which feed tool fits a given request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.