Fetch IGN top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use ign_headlines with a supported section slug. Use ign_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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe-read, external-network profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it pulls from the public feed and returns headline items, though it says nothing about rate limits or result caps. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a solid addition.
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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then two routing rules. Front-loaded and free of filler.
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 return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-param read tool the description supplies exactly the routing context an agent needs, with no gaps.
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 document and the baseline is 4. The description's clarification that no section filtering happens here correctly reflects the empty schema.
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 IGN top stories) and scopes it precisely to the general top-story stream. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ign_headlines (section-specific) and ign_article (single story body), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for itself and names both alternatives with the selecting condition: ign_headlines for a section slug, ign_article for one story's body with a returned URL. Nothing is left to inference.
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.
