Retrieve Android Authority top stories from its public site-wide feed and return clean JSON for Android news monitoring, aggregation, or analysis.
Get Android Authority top stories. Returns the latest Android Authority stories from the public site-wide 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 burden. It discloses that this is a read-only fetch of top stories from a public feed, which implies no authentication or side effects. However, it doesn't describe pagination, result count limits, or what 'top stories' means in terms of ordering or time window. For a simple zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The key information (what it returns, from where) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it gets and from where. The only minor gap is not specifying the number of stories or any ordering details, but for a simple top-stories feed this is sufficient.
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 description adds context by specifying the source ('public site-wide feed') and the selection ('top stories'), which helps an agent understand what will be returned without needing parameters. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.
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 tool returns Android Authority top stories from the public site-wide feed, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Android Authority top stories'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like androidauthority_article, androidauthority_headlines, and androidauthority_sections by specifying 'top stories' and 'public site-wide feed', though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 implies usage: it's for getting top stories from the public site-wide feed, with no parameters needed. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus androidauthority_headlines or androidauthority_news, but the 'top stories' and 'public site-wide feed' phrasing gives some context. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.