Fetch ABC News Australia top stories as structured JSON without input, with titles, canonical URLs, and optional summaries, authors, timestamps, and images.
Get ABC News Australia top stories. Returns the current ABC News Australia top stories, with no input needed. Each item has a title and canonical URL, and may also carry a summary, author, publication time and image.
| 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 does disclose the payload shape (title, canonical URL, optional summary/author/publication time/image), which is genuinely useful behavioral context in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about freshness, item count, pagination or error behavior.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence ('Returns the current ABC News Australia top stories') largely restates the first, so it is slightly redundant, but overall the text is tight and readable.
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 no input schema, no annotations and no output schema, the description sensibly compensates by describing the returned item fields. For a parameterless read-only feed tool it is nearly complete; only feed size/freshness details are 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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly states that no input is needed. 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 and resource: 'Get ABC News Australia top stories.' An agent can tell it fetches the current top-stories feed. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling abcau_headlines, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.
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 only usage hint is 'with no input needed,' which tells the agent no arguments are required but says nothing about when this tool is preferred over abcau_headlines, abcau_sections or abcau_article. With a sibling of almost identical scope, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.