Retrieve recent technology news articles from Donanımhaber's homepage, with titles, summaries, categories, views, comments, and URLs; set a limit from 1 to 50.
The latest tech news on donanimhaber.com (homepage). limit 1..50. Returns articles (id, title, summary, category, views, comments, URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields and the valid limit range, and 'latest news' implies a read-only fetch, but it says nothing about ordering guarantees, pagination, caching, or failure behavior for a scrape-style endpoint.
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 terse fragments, front-loaded with purpose, then constraint, then return shape. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic style ('limit 1..50') costs a little readability.
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 listing return fields is partly redundant but harmless confirmation. With one parameter, no annotations, and a simple read operation, the description covers the essentials; the missing pieces are sibling routing and any statement of ordering or freshness semantics.
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 0% — the single 'limit' parameter has a default of 10 but no description and no bounds in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating 'limit 1..50', which is genuinely useful constraint information absent from the structured fields, but the meaning of the limit (article count) is only implied.
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/resource combination: the latest tech news from donanimhaber.com's homepage. The '(homepage)' qualifier distinguishes it from a section- or query-scoped feed, though it never names donanimhaber_search_news or donanimhaber_section as the filtered alternatives.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the word 'latest' and '(homepage)' that this is the unfiltered front-page feed and that donanimhaber_search_news or donanimhaber_section should be used for targeted retrieval; that inference is never confirmed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.