Fetches ABC News top stories from its public sitemap feed and returns clean JSON for news monitoring, research, or content aggregation.
Get ABC News top stories. Returns fresh ABC News top stories from its public news sitemap 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that the stories come from a 'public news sitemap feed' and are 'fresh,' which conveys a read-only, no-auth data source. However, it omits details like return format, pagination behavior, or update frequency, which would be valuable for a tool with no output schema.
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 crisp sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information about scope or data source.
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?
The tool is simple and parameterless, so the description is sufficient for invocation. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not specify what fields or structure the returned 'top stories' will have, and it offers no comparison to sibling news tools. These are modest gaps for a simple feed tool but still leave room for improvement.
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 is trivially complete. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics the description could add; nothing is left undocumented.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get ABC News top stories.' This is clear and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like abcnews_headlines or abcnews_sections, which could plausibly serve a similar purpose.
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 the closely related news tools in the sibling list, such as abcnews_headlines or apnews_news. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.