Fetch current ABC News top stories as structured JSON, including titles, URLs, summaries, authors, timestamps, and images. No input required.
Get ABC News top stories. Returns the current ABC News 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose the return shape (title, canonical URL, optional summary, author, publication time, image). It says nothing about how many stories are returned, freshness, or ordering, which for a top-stories feed would be genuinely helpful context.
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 action and resource, with no padding. The second sentence lightly restates the first ("Returns the current ABC News top stories"), a minor redundancy rather than a structural flaw.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only feed with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: no input needed and what each item contains. Sufficient to call it correctly; a count or ordering detail would round it out.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly states that no input is required, which is accurate and prevents the agent from searching for a missing argument.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get ABC News top stories") and clearly identifies the data returned. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like abcnews_headlines, abcnews_sections, or abcnews_article, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus abcnews_headlines, abcnews_sections, or abcnews_article. The only usage cue is "with no input needed," which is a parameter note rather than a selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.