Fetch ABC News Australia top stories from its public RSS feed, returning clean JSON for news monitoring and updates via Crawlora MCP.
Get ABC News Australia top stories. Returns fresh ABC News Australia top stories from its public RSS feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does 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 source (public RSS feed) and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention any potential caching, rate limits, or failure behaviors. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not richly informative.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and source with no filler. It is efficient and to the point, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple list-fetch tool. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., list of items, fields), which would help an agent parse the response. It covers the essential 'what' and 'where' but omits the 'what format'.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('ABC News Australia top stories'), and specifies the source as a public RSS feed. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like abcau_headlines or abcau_sections, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit direction for selecting this over similar news-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.