Fetches Billboard top stories and returns each item's title, URL, publication time, summary, and image when available.
Get Billboard top stories. Returns the latest Billboard stories, with no input needed. Each item has a title and canonical URL, plus a publication time, summary and image when Billboard provides them.
| 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 full burden. It does disclose the return shape (title, canonical URL, publication time, summary, image when available) and notes fields are conditional on Billboard providing them, which is good. It says nothing about result count, pagination, ordering, or freshness window, which matters for a feed tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return contents. Minimal waste; the only mild redundancy is 'top stories' / 'latest Billboard stories' restating the same idea.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by enumerating expected return fields and flagging their optionality. The remaining gaps are feed mechanics (item count, ordering, recency) which an agent could use but is not blocked by.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals no input is required.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get Billboard top stories.' An agent immediately knows this returns a Billboard news feed. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling billboard_headlines or billboard_article, which likely cover overlapping surface area.
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?
'with no input needed' implies the tool is called directly with no arguments, which is useful call guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over billboard_headlines, billboard_article, or billboard_sections, so selection among siblings is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.