Fetch Rappler top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use rappler_headlines with a supported section slug. Use rappler_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 safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the data comes from a public feed scoped to the general top-story stream (as opposed to section-specific), but says nothing about pagination, refresh cadence, or result volume. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest but real 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 tightly written sentences, zero filler. The primary purpose and scope lead, and the routing advice follows immediately after, so the most important information is front-loaded.
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 an output schema present and no input parameters, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, both of which are covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; it correctly does not invent arguments. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 (fetch) and resource (Rappler top stories) plus the exact scope: headline items from the general top-story stream. It also distinguishes itself from rappler_headlines (section lists) and rappler_article (single story body), so an agent can pick it apart from siblings 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?
Explicitly names both alternatives and the conditions that select them: use rappler_headlines for section-specific lists, and rappler_article with a returned URL for a story body. This is a model of when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing.
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.
