Fetch Ars Technica stories with no input; returns titles, canonical URLs, and optional summaries, authors, publication times, and lead images.
Get Ars Technica top stories. Returns the latest Ars Technica stories, with no input needed. Each item has a title and canonical URL, and may also carry a summary, author, publication time and lead 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states that no input is needed and lists the likely returned fields, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether results are cached/fresh.
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 three sentences are front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, no-input behavior, then output shape. There is no filler or repetition.
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 news-feed tool without an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the source, lack of inputs, and expected item structure. It could say more about freshness or result limits, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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 baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by saying "with no input needed," leaving no ambiguity about invocation.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: "Get Ars Technica top stories" and "latest Ars Technica stories." It is easy to identify as a news-feed tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as arstechnica_headlines or arstechnica_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?
It implies usage for retrieving current Ars Technica stories with no input required, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.