Iceland News MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches news, supports date filtering, and returns structured data, covering basic operation and output. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'fetch' but not explicit). The description adds value but misses key behavioral traits for a tool with 6 parameters.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose and sources, the second adds key features (date filtering, return format). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating functionality from output details, but it's efficient with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, sources, key features, and return data. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a news-fetching tool with multiple parameters and siblings, it could benefit from more explicit behavioral context or usage examples.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'supports date filtering' (hinting at since/until parameters) and listing some sources, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch', 'returns') and resources ('Icelandic news', 'NewsItem data'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it fetches 'latest' news from specific sources with date filtering, unlike search_news (likely for searching), list_feeds (listing feeds), check_feeds (checking status), and cache_stats (monitoring cache).

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to get the latest news with date filtering from Icelandic sources. It implicitly distinguishes from search_news by not mentioning search functionality, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_news or other siblings. The input schema references list_feeds for feed options, adding some usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.