Fetch ABC News Australia top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use abcau_headlines with a supported section slug. Use abcau_article with a returned article URL when you need one story's body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a read-only, open-world fetch. The description adds useful context by specifying 'public feed' (no auth implied) and that results come from the general top-story stream rather than a curated or section feed. It omits any freshness/refresh rate, keeping it short of a 5.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the two routing alternatives. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.
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-param, read-only list endpoint with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, its scope, and where to go for section or article-level needs.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance that does not exist.
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 and resource ('Fetch ABC News Australia top stories'), the exact scope ('general top-story stream'), and the return shape ('headline items'), which cleanly separates it from abcau_headlines and abcau_article.
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?
Explicitly names the two alternative tools and the conditions that select them: section lists go to abcau_headlines, single bodies go to abcau_article. An agent needs no inference to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
