Fetch Raw Story top stories from the public feed; returns headline items from the general top-story stream. For a section-specific list, use rawstory_headlines with a supported section slug. Use rawstory_sections to discover section slugs.
| 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 adds valuable behavioral scope: it pulls from the public feed and the unfiltered general top-story stream, which tells the agent what content it will and won't get. It doesn't mention freshness, volume, or pagination, but against existing annotations this is a solid contribution.
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?
Two compact sentences: the core behavior is front-loaded, then the routing guidance follows. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 structure needn't be explained; the description instead supplies the scoping and routing context an agent needs. For a zero-parameter, read-only feed tool this is complete.
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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments exist and points to the sibling for any parameterized (section) queries, adding slight clarity over an 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 (Fetch) and resource (Raw Story top stories) plus precise scope: 'general top-story stream' returning 'headline items'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the section-specific sibling rawstory_headlines, so an agent can route without opening any 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?
Explicit routing: use rawstory_headlines for a section-specific list, and use rawstory_sections to discover section slugs. It names the alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving nothing 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.
