nature_briefingFetches the current Nature Briefing edition as text by category—daily, AI, translational, anthropology, or cancer—so you can read it directly.
The latest Nature Briefing edition, as text.
kind: nature-daily · nature-ai · nature-transl · nature-anthro · nature-cancer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | nature-daily |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that the result is 'as text'. It says nothing about whether the briefing comes from a remote fetch, what happens when no edition exists for a kind, or whether results are cached — all relevant for a network-backed read.
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 blocks, with the core purpose front-loaded and the enum values immediately after. The 'kind:' line is slightly raw in formatting but every token earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the parameter values are covered. What's missing is failure behavior and edition-availability semantics, which matter for a tool whose whole point is returning 'the latest' of something.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description has to compensate — and it does by enumerating all five valid `kind` values (nature-daily, nature-ai, nature-transl, nature-anthro, nature-cancer). It misses the default ('nature-daily') and any note on case or fallback, so not a 5.
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 resource and scope: 'The latest Nature Briefing edition, as text.' The verb is implicit ('fetch/return') but the resource and recency ('latest') are unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, scan_nature_briefings, which keeps it from a 5.
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 guidance on when to call this versus scan_nature_briefings or get_news_briefs, and no noted prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the name and the 'latest' qualifier alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.