Fetch a structured news briefing by key, returning a lead story, ranked stories and research items with summaries, why-it-matters notes, key points and ranking time.
One briefing as structured JSON: lead story, ranked stories and research items with summaries, why-it-matters and key points, plus when it was ranked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | briefing key from list_briefings, e.g. 'ai' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and that ranking time is included, but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for an unknown key, or whether results are cached/live.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the output format and resource, with no filler. It is dense but every clause maps to actual content of the response.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating the returned fields. The missing piece is any usage routing relative to the four sibling tools.
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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint details for 'key' beyond what the schema's own description already provides.
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 states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (a single briefing) and enumerates its contents — lead story, ranked stories, research items, ranking timestamp. It implicitly separates itself from list_briefings ('One briefing'), but never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the distinction.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call this instead of get_summary, render_briefing, or get_candidates. The only routing hint lives in the schema's parameter description ('briefing key from list_briefings'), not in the tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.