Fetch AP News top stories from the public Top News hub as structured JSON for news monitoring, headline aggregation, and current-events tracking.
Get AP News top stories. Returns AP News top stories from the public AP News Top News hub. The service does not bypass authentication or access controls. Billing is 1 credit, or 5 credits when browser rendering is required.
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral context: it states the tool 'does not bypass authentication or access controls' and gives specific billing costs of 1 credit or 5 credits with browser rendering. However, it does not describe return format, freshness, pagination, or rate limits, leaving important operational traits undisclosed.
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 short but the first two sentences are largely redundant: 'Get AP News top stories' is restated as 'Returns AP News top stories from the public AP News Top News hub.' The billing and authentication notes add value, but the lead sentences should be consolidated to front-load the unique information more efficiently.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action, authentication posture, and billing. It is missing detail about what the returned stories actually contain (e.g., article summaries, links, timestamps, count), which would be necessary for an agent to use the output correctly without an output schema.
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 and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for, and nothing in the description conflicts with the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get AP News top stories' and 'Returns AP News top stories from the public AP News Top News hub.' It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic news search, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as apnews_headlines or apnews_article.
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 alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like apnews_headlines, apnews_article, or apnews_sections, nor does it describe conditions or exclusions for selecting this top-stories endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.