Get Breitbart top stories from its public RSS feed, providing structured JSON data for news monitoring, aggregation, and analysis.
Get Breitbart top stories. Returns fresh Breitbart top stories from its public RSS 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 disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool is a read-only fetch of 'public' content and notes the freshness ('fresh') and source ('RSS feed'), which is useful. But it does not describe return structure, potential rate limits, or failure behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and the source/freshness detail in the second. There is minor repetition of 'Breitbart top stories,' but no meaningful bloat.
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 tool, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the resource, the result type, and the data source. However, with no output schema and no guidance distinguishing it from the closely related breitbart_headlines sibling, an agent may not be fully equipped to choose this tool confidently.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is therefore met without any param-specific explanation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Breitbart top stories.' Adding 'fresh Breitbart top stories from its public RSS feed' clarifies the data source and intent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling breitbart_headlines, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as breitbart_headlines, breitbart_sections, or breitbart_article. Usage context is only implied by 'top stories' and 'public RSS feed'; there are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.