Fetch Brisbane Times top stories from its Latest News RSS feed, returning titles, URLs, summaries, authors, publication times, and lead images.
Get Brisbane Times top stories. Returns Brisbane Times's current public Latest News RSS feed: story title, canonical URL, summary, author, publication time, and lead image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by naming the public Latest News RSS feed as the source and enumerating the returned fields, which implies a public read-only feed, but it says nothing about freshness, caching, or result limits.
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, front-loaded with the action and then the return contract. Efficient with no filler, though the second sentence packs the return fields somewhat densely.
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 output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (title, URL, summary, author, publication time, lead image), which is exactly what the agent needs. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only sibling differentiation.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, so there is no semantic gap to fill.
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+resource ("Get Brisbane Times top stories") and specifies the exact data source (the Latest News RSS feed), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like brisbanetimes_headlines or brisbanetimes_article, which the description never names.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though brisbanetimes_headlines, brisbanetimes_article, brisbanetimes_sections, and brisbanetimes_author sit in the same family. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this tool over those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.