get_latest_researchRetrieve recently updated research articles across all categories, with optional category filtering and a configurable result count for quick topic monitoring.
Get the most recently updated research articles across all categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of articles to return (default 5, max 20) | |
| category | No | Optional filter by top-level category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recency sort, but says nothing about return format, ordering tie-breaks, pagination, or whether count is capped server-side (the cap lives only in the schema). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 with no filler; the scope qualifier ('across all categories') is placed where it reads naturally. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone, and it covers purpose and sort order but omits return shape and any behavioral caveats. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but gaps remain for a tool agents must select over search_research.
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%: both 'count' (default 5, max 20) and 'category' are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the category filter, e.g. whether it accepts top-level names only, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recently updated research articles') plus scope ('across all categories'). It distinguishes itself from search_research by implying recency ordering, but never names the sibling to make the distinction explicit.
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 choose this over search_research, which is the obvious alternative for retrieving articles. The one hint is 'most recently updated', which implies a recency feed, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.