mpaz_list_newsRetrieve recent news posts from the athletics homepage, ordered by date descending, in full or brief view for quick read-only updates.
Recent news posts from the athletics site homepage, newest first. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | "full" (default) returns the structured result; "brief" returns one line per item: title — <ISO date or "no date"> — <status>. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Input schema / properties / viewAdded value: +{
+ "description": "\"full\" (default) returns the structured result; \"brief\" returns one line per item: title — <ISO date or \"no date\"> — <status>.",
+ "enum": [
+ "full",
+ "brief"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so "Read-only" is a restatement rather than new information. The genuinely additive piece is the disclosure that results are drawn only from the homepage and returned newest first, which affects interpretation of completeness and ordering; nothing is said about page size or result count.
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 the scope and ordering front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing "Read-only." is the one sentence that does not earn its place given readOnlyHint is already set.
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 zero-required-parameter read-only list this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the structured result contains (fields per post) or how many posts are returned. An agent knows the ordering and the source but not the shape or size of the response.
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 100% and the single `view` parameter's enum values are fully documented in the schema, including the brief line format. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
"Recent news posts from the athletics site homepage, newest first" names the resource, its source, and its ordering, which separates it from siblings like mpaz_list_photo_galleries and mpaz_list_videos. It stops short of saying exactly what a post contains, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.
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 homepage-only scope implies when this is the right list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling list tools (galleries, videos, teams) as alternatives. An agent must infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.